lorry

I am right, Peterson is wrong, and he is shit at math.

I think your conception of information is incorrect, please consider reading through this explanation of the relation between information and choice.

Destruction of information in the frame of reference of the receiver. Make sense now?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

He argued that he needs legally protected freedom of speech so he can think by himself.

Well, no. The form of the content doesn't matter so long as the sender and receiver can encode and decode the information respectively. With respect to verbal or written communication, we have very specific rules on the form of the content already. These rules are called: grammar. Don't you agree?

Did you catch Stef talk about (tweet about) the relationship between attractiveness and IQ? And if there is a relationship between IQ and personality traits, then you have your relationship between facial features and personality. Well, they are selecting for vulnerability, right? And vulnerability is something related to parental neglect, so it goes with ACE score, etc. And they can pick it up from things like.... clothing, posture, appearance, etc. And I mean they can pick it up at a glance (this much at least). If you started looking at the relative frequencies of certain behaviors, such as propensity for eye contact, timber of voice, etc.. etc.. etc.. which would be your level of social integration. But there is a lot you can pick up just from an image. A similar model probably does exist, sure. But creating a model is not the difficult part of creating a model. Creating a data-set is the hardest bit, then engineering features to train a model on. That said, if anyone reading this did want to do big 5 personality vs whatever, there is a facebook vs big 5 and IQ score dataset already.

I didn't define them, Claude Shannon did. Information reduces uncertainty. Questions can transmit information. For intuition... Ever watch Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Consider you are faced with a question, you have no idea what the answer is, so you have insufficient reason to pick on answer over another. You can pick at random, you'll have 1/4 chance of picking correctly. You can do no better than random, eh? This what uncertainty means. Insufficient reason to pick one over another. Measured relative to no better than random. Oh shit, eh? No worries, you have some lifelines! You use 50/50, and 2 incorrect answers are removed. You still have no idea what the right answer is, but now if choose at random you have a 1/2 chance of picking correctly. 1/2 is 2/4 and alot better than 1/4! What just happened? You gained information, you uncertainty has decreased! The information was that two of the four were incorrect, and you are much better off relative to before. You can be more certain you will pick the right answer, even if you choose at random. But still, 1/2 is not as good as 2/2. But hey, it is a philosophy question, you have Stef's number, and you can phone a friend. You call Stef, he tells you the right answer, and boom! 1/2 goes to 2/2. More information, less uncertainty. That which is required to make correct choices is never in the mind of the beholder, what is in the mind of the beholder is the specific evaluation of which choice IS correct. The correctness of a choice is defined in the context of a person and what they are trying to achieve, ie, their specific nature and their values. It can differ from person to person, but for a person of a specific nature, trying to achieve a specific outcome, it is defined. You were a contestant on WWTBAM. Assuming you wanted to be a millionaire the correct choice is the one which is factually correct. We can imagine some contrived example where something awful occurs if you win, so you throw the game to avoid something awful happening. What has changed is your values, what you were trying to achieve, not what was the correct choice so as to achieve that which you value. Or lets say you have some unprocessed trauma around being a millionaire and so you throw the game so as not to provoke whatever unprocessed trauma is there. Again, what has changed is what you were actually trying to achieve, secondary psychological gain presumably, not what was the correct decision so as to achieve that outcome. That which is correct is forever in hindsight? People make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, but we are doing a lot better than random, eh? Reduce information? Well to reduce information is to increase uncertainty. That is easy enough to think through. Back to WWTBAM, you call Stef and he tells you the wrong answer on purpose because.... because! The reasons don't matter, but you just want from a 1/2 chance to 0. Information decreased, uncertainty increased. Millionaire status, btfo. How do you know he just fucked you over? Well, we have grammar for that. If Stef said "barn, I don't really know what the right answer is, I think it is X, but I'm not sure bud" aka, if you follow my answer you still only have a 1/2 chance of being right. Well, that is very different from "[snickers] barn..... [in an annoying British ascent] have you even read Locke?! That answer is Y! 100%!". Easy, no? Try it with the Lugenpresse...

Ok, making that labeled data set is probably not going to work. I was thinking something like... write a spider to pull information from facebook adoption pages. But then we get instantly stumped by the fact the adopted children are.... adopted! Not related to either parent. So then I suppose we could find sperm donor mothers with partners. They would be good, but a lot of work. I had a better idea. So we take a whole bunch of large families with pictures of lots of labeled relatives. Then we train a regression model on the genetic distance (based on relation, ie, parent, sibling, grandparent, cousin, etc) against facial similarity. Then we use this regression model to predict the genetic distance between father and child. Pick a suitable threshold, and boom! We have our classification model! (We can use the model to predict genetic distance between all available family members, if a father is non-paternal, the mother still should be, huge signal! And siblings/cousins/grand-parents will/will not be if we know which side of the family they are from)

I dunno, barn. If a little bully can successfully pick a victim (the victim being a neglected/abused child, thus, ptsd-esque) or a pedophile can successfully pick a victim, then someone with a huge head and thick rimmed glasses (psysiogmony banter) can probably train a machine to do the same (if given sufficient data). http://www.clinical-innovation.com/topics/artificial-intelligence/ai-facial-analysis-system-improve-diagnosis-rare-diseases

p.s. Obviously started googling around, here is a (possibly) interesting paper (FDR interesting, not OP interesting). Machine learning methods to predict child posttraumatic stress: a proof of concept study

I was just thinking of project ideas and this popped into my head. It would certainly be interesting to do. It would rustle so many fucking jimmies! I don't think the problem would be particularly difficult, that is the fun bit, but creating a data-set would be a nightmare! But just imagine it lads! Any ideas on how one might be made? (data-set, not a classification model)

Respectfully, I do not think Jordan Peterson has a correct conception of information. Speech defined as communicating information - verbally (or more generally as communicating information) would compel a formal definition of information, and a correct formal definition of information would lead one to take a (what would seem to be) very radical positions. So..... Speech being the communication of information. Information being that which is required to (objectively) reduce uncertainty, ie, that which is required to make correct choices. Implies that freedom of speech, is freedom to communication information, is freedom to communicate that which is required to make correct choices. And so something is protected by freedom of speech only in so far as it a communication of information. Take this and apply it to the press, to the fake news: Fake news is not communicating information, it is not communicating that which is required to make correct choices. It is the destruction of information, and the negation of that which is required to make correct choices. So it is not speech and therefore it can not be protected by free speech. Global warming hysteria? Not free speech. Equality between races? Not free speech. Sleep with 10 guys, it'll be Ok!? Not free speech. Trump is Hitler? Not free speech. Black are discriminated against? Not free speech. Muh communism? NOT FREE SPEECH. Not even remotely JP's position. I think he is shit at math (viz., information theory) and doesn't know what he is talking about. That said, there is no comprehensive theory of free speech in law, I've checked. It has yet to be written. So I might be being a bit harsh.

SEO and marketing course https://eu.udacity.com/course/digital-marketing-nanodegree--nd018 Intro to Programming course https://eu.udacity.com/course/intro-to-programming-nanodegree--nd000 Here is what you can do: Wait until the classroom is a day away from opening. Sign Up. Classroom opens, and you spend a day or two copying down all the course materials. PDFs, Links, Structures, Projects, etc. Once you have all the content, cancel the course (you shouldn't need a refund because there is a 1 week cancellation policy). Do the course. Apply it to your business. FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY START A BLOG ON MEDIUM AND TELL US ABOUT IT. ??? Profit. Obviously check the cancellation policy and if you gain from said skills chuck a few quid their way.

Sorry Kikker, I was inattentive and did not see your post. I fundamentally don't agree on the relationship between thought and communication described by Jordan. I think to put speech prior to thought (by this I mean something close to cognition, not necessarily conscious thought as such) is to put the cart before the horse.

An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. -- Ayn Rand (never going to be a philosopher)

No worries. In the OP you said... If Sam concedes that anti-social populations should be deported, then it follows that if Jews are an anti-social population, they should be deported.

Schiedler.

I didn't know this. 11/10! Just sent to my sister who bought her first house. Thank you so much! G x

Probably required significant updating and whoever made it couldn't support it. A stop gap could be to pop FDR onto Spotify. Guess this is another app project, eh? Hmm.......

Sam Harris, is a Jew.

Brownian motion?

No, bro. Ideas are not interesting. Who has the time or energy spend to figure out whether or not your (anyone's) idea is correct? Yet alone useful! Make something that solves a problem that people have, and then share it.

Charming.

1. Therefore? 2. Therefore? 3. YouTube recommendation. As I watched 'very stable genius' by Stefan, JP with Cathy, N. was recommended and the thumbnail was in my top right . Serendipity, I think. 4. I sometimes wonder if people here think the way I think (I think not), and because I don't think that the information I identified is all the information to be identified (did I miss something? Again, I think not). I think "Physician heal thyself", coming from you, is quight impertinent.