Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 83
5/18/2025, 8:02:11 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
250d
@Nicky_Bonez @GaryMarcus Ok, then the definition is good enough to frame the disagreement and “you should read more” and “psychologists disagree on appropriate definitions,” etc. are a red herring.
Nick
@Nicky_Bonez
·
250d
@littmath @GaryMarcus They don’t meet the colloquial definition, so.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
250d
@GaryMarcus @Nicky_Bonez Ok, I’m arguing that these tools meet the colloquial definition. If you agree with that there’s no need to argue further.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
250d
@littmath @Nicky_Bonez You really ought to read other literature outside math more.

Intelligence is something that cognitive psychologists have been arguing for over for 100 years.

Many have argued for other definitions, that the concept is not well-formed, must be more differentiated etc.
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
250d
@GaryMarcus @Nicky_Bonez Not really sure what this means; “intelligence” is a common English word whose meaning is well-captured by a dictionary, while “hyperkahler” is not.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
250d
@littmath @Nicky_Bonez You take all your math definitions from there, @littmath?

The statement is part of a public discourse on the definition of 'intelligence' and its interpretation across different disciplines. The tone is somewhat dismissive and critical, aiming to redirect the conversation towards a more comprehensive understanding of the term by referencing a Wikipedia article. The intent is to challenge the interlocutors to consider broader perspectives rather than relying on narrow definitions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but uses a dismissive tone, which could be perceived as undermining the discourse's civility. This slightly violates the principle of doing no harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by suggesting a broader perspective on the definition of intelligence, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out the perceived shortcomings in the interlocutors' approach. However, the use of an eye-roll emoji and the phrase 'forum shop for the weakest dictionary definition' could be seen as dismissive, which slightly violates the principle of avoiding personal attacks. [-1]