Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
that notion is objectively false over IQ 70-75 though.
the vast majority of intellectual efforts in language are used to control other people.
the most credible theory of why our IQ grew more than we needed to dominate immediate environmental issues is internecine intellectual warfare among humans , 0 sum.wordcel games. the shaman convincing you after the hunt to give him the prime pieces of meat while he waited at home kind of thing.
I think I recall reading somewhere before that it's widely accepted among anthropologists that language is the progenitor of thought, not vice versa.
What now? So you're saying when I read A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking is trying to control me rather than convey some interesting ideas from modern particle physics and cosmology in an accessible manner?
no I am saying that's not the normal use of intelligence, it's kind of the odd thing although it generated the vast majority of human progress.
in the parlance of the techbros, the autistics saved the world. being on the spectrum at least a little liberates your intelligence from the 0 sum struggle and attempt at dominating others for your benefit, and that is the engine of technological progress on a sense.
no I am saying that's not the normal use of intelligence, it's kind of the odd thing although it generated the vast majority of human progress.
in the parlance of the techbros, the autistics saved the world. being on the spectrum at least a little liberates your intelligence from the 0 sum struggle and attempt at dominating others for your benefit, and that is the engine of technological progress on a sense.
Ok, now I don't understand wtf you're trying to say. Snap out of craig mode, since you're now failing both to control me and to communicate with me.
Ok, now I don't understand wtf you're trying to say. Snap out of craig mode, since you're now failing both to control me and to communicate with me.
normal use of intelligence historically, normal way the higher IQ members of a group used their advantage, was to end up at the top of the local hierarchy.
the attempt to understand reality as it is, draw causal references systematically (what we formalized as science), trying stuff to get technology to work (engineering) and so on are historically niche uses of intelligence.
which is why we repeatedly had cases of societies coming SO CLOSE to the I dustrial revolution but giving up on the effort. Rome, China, and so on
you had 50 priests for one engineer ok?
uses typically made by people on the spectrum at least a little, people interested in "things" more than people, the "geeks", the "nerds"
normal use of intelligence historically, normal way the higher IQ members of a group used their advantage, was to end up at the top of the local hierarchy.
the attempt to understand reality as it is, draw causal references systematically (what we formalized as science), trying stuff to get technology to work (engineering) and so on are historically niche uses of intelligence.
which is why we repeatedly had cases of societies coming SO CLOSE t
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I fail to see how it supports your assertion that the primary function of language is to control people rather than to communicate effectively. If you recall, that was the assertion I was questioning. You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I fail to see how it supports your assertion that the primary function of language is to control people rather than to communicate effectively. If you recall, that was the assertion I was questioning. You seem to have gone off on a tangent.
control people as fighting the 0 sum game to reach the top of the social hierarchy.
if you agree more intelligent people typically do that especially in small group you see what the evolutionary impulse is.
that is for language that goes above the basics you need to organize a hunt and so on (the iq 70 threshold I mentioned). that was for efficacy
normal use of intelligence historically, normal way the higher IQ members of a group used their advantage, was to end up at the top of the local hierarchy.
the attempt to understand reality as it is, draw causal references systematically (what we formalized as science), trying stuff to get technology to work (engineering) and so on are historically niche uses of intelligence.
which is why we repeatedly had cases of societies coming SO CLOSE t
damn, chatgpt really sucks huh
control people as fighting the 0 sum game to reach the top of the social hierarchy.
if you agree more intelligent people typically do that especially in small group you see what the evolutionary impulse is.
that is for language that goes above the basics you need to organize a hunt and so on (the iq 70 threshold I mentioned). that was for efficacy
I wasn't suggesting "effective communication" was simply letting your wife you'll be home by 9pm. I am including the communication of complex, sometimes abstract ideas under that umbrella as well.
I've heard out your argument and I remain unpersuaded that the primary function of language is something other than effective communication. Even if I were to agree that control and manipulation is the primary goal of most communication (which I don't), it would still need to be effective in order to succeed.
I wasn't suggesting "effective communication" was simply letting your wife you'll be home by 9pm. I am including the communication of complex, sometimes abstract ideas under that umbrella as well.
I've heard out your argument and I remain unpersuaded that the primary function of language is something other than effective communication.
my claim is that the primary function of language isn't effective communication over a threshold we reached 50-60k years ago.
it was when we created a gap with previous **** species and all other mammals and so on
I ninja edited this in: Even if I were to agree that control and manipulation is the primary goal of most communication (which I don't), it would still need to be effective in order to succeed.
I ninja edited this in: Even if I were to agree that control and manipulation is the primary goal of most communication (which I don't), it would still need to be effective in order to succeed.
effective at convincing others not at transferring actual information about society.
a priest that convinces the masses of various bullshit efficaciously, and gains massively from that, isn't communicating about truth is he?
effective at convincing others not at transferring actual information about society.
a priest that convinces the masses of various bullshit efficaciously, and gains massively from that, isn't communicating about truth is he?
My claim was "efficient communication" not "efficient transfer of information". A pedantic distinction, but in the context of the ensuing discussion, it seems an important one.
5000 posts on efficient communication, beautiful
Either the edible I consumed was mislabeled or Luciom's account has been hijacked by jbutton.
"Reality check" is a great example because it has a very common meaning that is almost entirely unrelated to the way craig is using it.
I was thinking about this more and I have to ask:
What is the common meaning which differs?
A reality check is when your reality gets checked by a higher reality. What do people think is checking their reality? Or have they simply not thought about it?
Aside from the fact that you now seem to be parodying yourself (thx btw, got a hearty lol from your last post), you have already forgotten my admonition to not use the term you are defining in the definition. Three times in 1 sentence.
I was thinking about this more and I have to ask:
What is the common meaning which differs?
A reality check is when your reality gets checked by a higher reality. What do people think is checking their reality? Or have they simply not thought about it?
In common parlance it's normally used to mean someone needs to acknowledge a (normally unpleasant) truth about something they're trying to achieve or something they falsly believe. It is tangentially related to what you are saying but is almost never used to talk about realising an inner truth about a person's own identity/self but rather it refers to facts about the world around them.
A quark-gluon plasma is a plasma made of quarks and gluons. Matrix multiplication is when you take matrices and multiply them. Damn, this definition writing malarkey is way easier than I thought.
