I don't think the 2SD gap is really accurate. Actually smart people who don't have autism (read: brain damage), are generally pretty good at communication and emulation. They can make themselves understood to a bunch of C- bureaucrats for the sake of getting grants, just like they can distill their ideas for children. Morons can't do that.
If the 2SD gap was legit, then retards would be a bunch of Dr Doolittles, living in harmony with beasts, while smart people would need retard proxies to train their dog for them. That is clearly not the case.
Making yourself understood does not equal having fun communicating.
I want to talk to others that can see the apple in 3D and spin it around in their heads. "But I did have breakfast"-tier of communication is not sufficient for enjoyment. It is not my responsibility to bring stupid people up to my level. But I'm starting to accept that maybe it is my responsibility.
I talk to people, and it just takes so fucking long.
You have to use "scaffolding" to frame the topic if it is anything at all interesting or controversial.
Here is how it goes. You pick a topic. How about Money Laundering in Ukraine.
Start by encouraging the other person to talk on the subject. Show empathy and understanding.
Repeat back to the other person what they just said, to demonstrate that you understand their feelings and PoV.
Using the most mild tone and depreciating language suggest some minor changes to their (straight from MSNBC) worldview. "Have you considered..." Or "Have you ever thought about..."
If you did step one and two well enough, they MIGHT be in a place that they can accept a tiny little nugget of new information. Don't push to hard or you will alienate them and they will stop listening.
Watch the other person squirm because they don't like the way this new information makes them feel. They instinctively understand that for the new information to be true, then they must have been very wrong about a bunch of stuff for a long time, and they don't like that.
Use emotional language to deliberately manipulate the emotions of the other person so they are more likely to be persuaded.
Watch them agree with you (because you are pretty clearly very knowledgeable and consistent) then walk away and immediately reject or forget everything you discussed because they don't like the way it makes them feel.
People don't have to be dumb to require this process. l have met very smart people who are 100% emotional thinkers; that is they think with their feelings and use their mind to rationalize their decisions.
I have also met people who are smart but very firmly in the grip of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I am not even that smart. My IQ is about 150, but I am absolutely, deeply, obsessive about discovering the real, actual, measurable truth of the world. I am delighted to be shown wrong, because I can correct my worldview.
So I don't talk to a lot of people. There is literally nothing for us to talk about that isn't utterly trivial and insignificant.
I've found points 3,4 to be rather effective (actually without doing 1 and 2). An important factor, which is what 1,2 may be about, is that people need to like you. They're not even going to give what you say a hearing if they dislike you or are neutral towards you.
Regarding 5: it is not exactly a surprise that someone's worldview does not change based on one new fact that is inconsistent with it. If you think of someone's worldview in terms of a Kuhnian scientific revolution, one single anomaly should not make him change his entire worldview. Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
My experience shows that for most people the new facts must reach a point where the cognitive dissonance becomes almost physically painful before they will change their mind about anything.
Then they will probably hate you for changing their mind, because they decide that you are the source of the discomfort, which is false, because you don't control the Truth of the world.
If parts of their worldview are connected to their identity, then they would probably rather die than change. For example, lefties who are deprogrammed enough to see that the cause they were advancing causes almost unlimited misery and death. To discover that you have been so badly wrong is intensely painful should cause deep reflection.
I am strange in that I have cultivated a willingness to be shown how I am wrong, specifically, so I can be less wrong in the future. It is a deeply unnatural mode of thinking and requires rigorous application to develop. I am still struggling with it. Being a devotee to the capital T truth of the world does not make one a nice person, nor is it advantageous for making friends or cultivating social relationships. I'd rather be right than happy. I won't lie, even to myself.
The people who believe the 2SD thing also believe a modern computer can't emulate a Nintendo 64's computer, because there's too much of an artificial intelligence gap between the two. The N64 can't ever emulate a windows 11 desktop, communication is impossible there, but windows 11 desktop can certainly emulate the N64.
And we'd all call a computer that couldn't emulate lower-level software to be handicapped in some way.
It's not as great as if you're on the same level, you're constantly aware you're running on a lower-level, but "near impossible" is truly ridiculous a sentiment, for sure.
You sidestep it. If the other processor cannot handle 4 cores, you don't hit them with 16 cores, you downscale. Don't try to make them "get it". You're not picking a marriage partner, you're picking someone to make smalltalk with while accomplishing some side objective such as playing a game or conducting business.
We know it's aggravating, but you described it as "impossible." Most the replies are reading that literally like there is a bidirectional language barrier rather than it just being so frustrating it's difficult not to walk away.
It is impossible within the confines of a polite conversation.
If the other party were very trusting of the speaker
If the other party were truly motivated to grasp the concepts being used
if the other party were to actually do the work (which might take weeks or months) they would be truly changed by the ramifications of the new concepts and the new, improved world model.
For example: Where does money (fiat currency) come from? How is it created? Under what circumstances is it destroyed? What are the long term implications; especially WRT the boom and bust cycle?
Someone with an IQ of 84 literally can't get the concepts involved in this discussion. They just can't. No amount of work will get them there.
Even having such a discussion with you would require that we have enough shared culture (and attached concepts) to be able to discuss the matter.
If you didn't know what fiat currency was or how it is created, I'd probably rely on about an hour of animated videos to get you there.
I don't want to try to sum up a literal hour of very careful scripted and animated educational videos so I can establish the base foundations for the conversation. More to the point the person I am talking with won't have a single useful or interesting thing to say on the subject. Why would I even bother?
So, define impossible buddy. Can it be technically done? Sometimes. Often even. Is is utterly, completely pointless on every single occasion? Yes.
I don't think the 2SD gap is really accurate. Actually smart people who don't have autism (read: brain damage), are generally pretty good at communication and emulation. They can make themselves understood to a bunch of C- bureaucrats for the sake of getting grants, just like they can distill their ideas for children. Morons can't do that.
If the 2SD gap was legit, then retards would be a bunch of Dr Doolittles, living in harmony with beasts, while smart people would need retard proxies to train their dog for them. That is clearly not the case.
Making yourself understood does not equal having fun communicating.
I want to talk to others that can see the apple in 3D and spin it around in their heads. "But I did have breakfast"-tier of communication is not sufficient for enjoyment. It is not my responsibility to bring stupid people up to my level. But I'm starting to accept that maybe it is my responsibility.
I talk to people, and it just takes so fucking long.
You have to use "scaffolding" to frame the topic if it is anything at all interesting or controversial.
Here is how it goes. You pick a topic. How about Money Laundering in Ukraine.
People don't have to be dumb to require this process. l have met very smart people who are 100% emotional thinkers; that is they think with their feelings and use their mind to rationalize their decisions.
I have also met people who are smart but very firmly in the grip of the Dunning Kruger effect.
I am not even that smart. My IQ is about 150, but I am absolutely, deeply, obsessive about discovering the real, actual, measurable truth of the world. I am delighted to be shown wrong, because I can correct my worldview.
So I don't talk to a lot of people. There is literally nothing for us to talk about that isn't utterly trivial and insignificant.
I've found points 3,4 to be rather effective (actually without doing 1 and 2). An important factor, which is what 1,2 may be about, is that people need to like you. They're not even going to give what you say a hearing if they dislike you or are neutral towards you.
Regarding 5: it is not exactly a surprise that someone's worldview does not change based on one new fact that is inconsistent with it. If you think of someone's worldview in terms of a Kuhnian scientific revolution, one single anomaly should not make him change his entire worldview. Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.
My experience shows that for most people the new facts must reach a point where the cognitive dissonance becomes almost physically painful before they will change their mind about anything.
Then they will probably hate you for changing their mind, because they decide that you are the source of the discomfort, which is false, because you don't control the Truth of the world.
If parts of their worldview are connected to their identity, then they would probably rather die than change. For example, lefties who are deprogrammed enough to see that the cause they were advancing causes almost unlimited misery and death. To discover that you have been so badly wrong is intensely painful should cause deep reflection.
I am strange in that I have cultivated a willingness to be shown how I am wrong, specifically, so I can be less wrong in the future. It is a deeply unnatural mode of thinking and requires rigorous application to develop. I am still struggling with it. Being a devotee to the capital T truth of the world does not make one a nice person, nor is it advantageous for making friends or cultivating social relationships. I'd rather be right than happy. I won't lie, even to myself.
but spinning the apple is the one thing I can't do :(
The people who believe the 2SD thing also believe a modern computer can't emulate a Nintendo 64's computer, because there's too much of an artificial intelligence gap between the two. The N64 can't ever emulate a windows 11 desktop, communication is impossible there, but windows 11 desktop can certainly emulate the N64.
And we'd all call a computer that couldn't emulate lower-level software to be handicapped in some way.
It's not as great as if you're on the same level, you're constantly aware you're running on a lower-level, but "near impossible" is truly ridiculous a sentiment, for sure.
You sidestep it. If the other processor cannot handle 4 cores, you don't hit them with 16 cores, you downscale. Don't try to make them "get it". You're not picking a marriage partner, you're picking someone to make smalltalk with while accomplishing some side objective such as playing a game or conducting business.
Isn't it that they don't want to get it? The limiting factor for people's comprehension is generally not their intelligence, but their self-interest.
We know it's aggravating, but you described it as "impossible." Most the replies are reading that literally like there is a bidirectional language barrier rather than it just being so frustrating it's difficult not to walk away.
It is impossible within the confines of a polite conversation.
For example: Where does money (fiat currency) come from? How is it created? Under what circumstances is it destroyed? What are the long term implications; especially WRT the boom and bust cycle?
Someone with an IQ of 84 literally can't get the concepts involved in this discussion. They just can't. No amount of work will get them there.
Even having such a discussion with you would require that we have enough shared culture (and attached concepts) to be able to discuss the matter.
If you didn't know what fiat currency was or how it is created, I'd probably rely on about an hour of animated videos to get you there.
I don't want to try to sum up a literal hour of very careful scripted and animated educational videos so I can establish the base foundations for the conversation. More to the point the person I am talking with won't have a single useful or interesting thing to say on the subject. Why would I even bother?
So, define impossible buddy. Can it be technically done? Sometimes. Often even. Is is utterly, completely pointless on every single occasion? Yes.