Category Archives: Ideas

Unconscious aptitude is more natural

I’ve already figured out that unconscious aptitude is rarer than focused thought (and thus fortuitous), but not until this point did I realize that it might actually be the innate sort of intelligence!

While walking, I hypothesized that unconscious intelligence, the state I tend to prefer to very focused concentration (except when deeply involved in, say, a particularly fun math proof), is most likely a more natural form of intelligence that most people lose because they are conditioned to specialize (and thus must think – consciously – very hard about very narrow subjects, leaving no time, and eventually little will, for “free” contemplation). After all, most gifted people that I know tended to think that way until they reached college. It follows, then, that I retained my ability to think as I do quite definitely because I was never significantly challenged. That explains why I accomplished my greatest intellectual achievements outside of the context of formal education (with the exception of graduating with the highest GPA in my class, which wasn’t so much an achievement as a reward). The fact that I could achieve such things at such a young age simply served to reinforce the behavior, and thus now I can advance my understanding of many fields in parallel where the others I knew cannot. Their knowledge outside of their specializations ends at whatever proficiency they built it up to at the time they were teenagers, and by the time they revisit it again, it will be too late to master… but mine continues to grow.

Relativism

While walking, I came up with an interesting argument for relativism, which is one of the philosophies I extend in my “Treatise on the Objective Reality of Ideas”: support I take two pictures of a tree, one with a very short exposure time, one with a very long one. Which is the truth? Well, both of them reflect the image of the same real-world tree, and yet one would certainly appear more “tree-like” than the other (ala Plato)… yet if the perspective is changed (extending the exposure time), the very concept of what a tree is can change.

Let’s take the analogy even further. What if we take a photo of a tree and digitally enhance it? (Nothing too complicated that would lose the image of the tree; let’s say we just normalize the image’s histogram). Is the enhanced photo still a tree? What would the distinction be between enhancing the photo in software and changing the capture parameters on the camera? What if the camera could perform normalization directly?

Even better, what if a photo was, say, underexposed, and was digitally corrected to more closely resemble the real-world scene that it was meant to capture? The enhancements are “fake”, but they more closely match reality than the unenhanced photo!

The point I’m trying to drive at is that it’s foolish to say that any single image of the tree is the image of the tree. There is an entire family (technically of infinite size) of images that could pass as a tree.

So what you perceive as a tree depends on you.

Skyglasses

Glasses that annotate positions in the sky (say with star names) based on orientation would be most useful in meteor watching and other various stargazing activities.

The Four Types of Talent

I’ve classified “talent” into four categories. These are differences in type more than degree of talent, as all types are equally capable of acquiring high levels of skill and making new contributions to fields:

Talent with formal education – a talent that manifests with exposure to formal education. A student excelling well beyond his peers in a specific field may easily have this type of talent.

Talent with self-education – talent that manifests with education, say, by voracious reading. When a scientist picks up the works of a previous scientist on his own and goes on to perform great things in the same field, it is this form of talent that is being expressed.

Talent without education – talent that is present within an individual before any significant instruction is given. This form of talent often manifests as intuitive insight into the workings of a field, and may be difficult to express. Education may not necessarily be harmful, but it isn’t really necessary.

Talent, formal education contraindicated – people with this form of talent excel because they think of concepts in unusual ways. The thoughts of people with this talent are unconventional enough that attempting to reconcile them with conventional practice in a field through formal education may very well result in the loss of this talent altogether.

These are not necessarily distinct categories, and it is possible to be talented in one subject in one way and talented in a different subject in another way (of course). For example, Alice may be talented with both formal and self-education in producing widgets, while Bob might be talented with education in producing widgets but talented without education in music.

Talents that require education tend to result in more thorough and complete work, but do generally take more time and effort to develop than those that do not.

Sweat as a disinfectant

I hypothesize that sweat acts as a selective disinfectant. This is a relatively easy experiment to conduct (have a bunch of people sweat, put the sweat in one petri dish and water in another, and try to grow some bacteria), but since I don’t have the equipment, I’ll theorize and leave the experimentation to someone who is equipped to, you know, perform science.

There are two theoretical angles that convince me of this: one is physiological behavior (people sweat when they’re sick and when they’re active, and in both cases, an antiseptic effect may be beneficial to the organism. Sweat is also hypothesized to have a sexual function, and indeed a disinfectant may prove especially beneficial in situations where body fluids may be shared) and the other, more compelling reason, is that sweat contains cresols, which happen to be the chemicals found in Lysol.

So someone do the experiment, and please mention me in a footnote or something if you got the idea here 🙂

Wiki biographies

This is one that someone else has implemented already, but an interesting idea nonetheless: WikiYou – the place where anyone, no matter how unimportant, can write a biography about themselves.

I’m not signing up; I have my own domain for this.

Flocking and magnets

Certain people function as “social magnets”, for lack of a better phrase. They’ll walk into a room and bring the party with them. (In Soviet Russia, the Party walks YOU into a room! …Sorry, couldn’t resist). They tend to attract people in two topologies: mesh (small groups of people interacting with each other) or star (everyone talking to the “magnet”). When they walk into a quiet room and their entourage begins to build, the former inhabitants of that room (who are almost certainly all introverts) will look for an excuse to leave.

This takes place in cities too, except that now we have groups rather than individuals:

Suppose a group of, say, famous musicians decides to buy houses in a specific area (say, Rumson, NJ). The entire town will attract fans of the group, who will find common ground interacting with each other about the musicians, or will interact with the musicians themselves.

This is a recurring motif on all levels of social organization, and might be worth thinking about in more depth.