• @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody’s paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn’t get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, “The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels.” And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to “People read.”

    Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:

    I also remark that the human equivalent of a utility function, not that we actually have one, often revolves around desires whose frustration produces pain.

    Ah. People don’t like to hurt.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      tbh I don’t think that’s a good rephrasing by feynman.

      I also don’t think yud intended to claim that people don’t like to hurt. I’m pretty sure what he meant is that people have a strong desire not to desire things fruitlessly, one that can outweigh EV considerations. still gibberish unless you have enough rationalist brain poisoning to take the assumptions behind “can outweigh EV considerations” seriously, which I don’t

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        It’s definitely a bad rephrasing. It’s like trying to simplify E = MC² to “big boom”. Like technically yes, matter can be converted into energy but that loses a lot in the rephrasing. It just sounds like he didn’t understand the subject.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      More like “People want things and hurt if they don’t get them. Also, look at me saying things like utility function! Function is math! Math is smart. I am smart! Isn’t that so cool?”

    • @Irishred88
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      I too wish academics, and those at least pretending, would do away with the rhetorical peacocking. Nobody learns from it and it makes the writing inaccessible. It’s deliberate gatekeeping confused for professional writing.