Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

Neuralink is amazing technology and watching videos of participants who have completely different abilities and freedom with Neuralink implants is mind blowing. It’s sad that many want to dismiss these amazing achievements just because it’s an Elon Musk founded company. At some point you simply have to acknowledge his success (and his team’s), and hope they get further with all of this.

For those interested in their clinical trials:

https://neuralink.com/trials/

Not trying to be snarky, but doesn't this mental model effectively allow you to ignore any/all things otherwise intelligent people have to say, simply because you disagree? If I met Einstein, and he had opinions about how to cook chicken that differed from mine, I wouldn't leap to "he's a complete moron in the kitchen!", i'd be inclined to really attempt to understand the difference of opinion.

I'm not disagreeing that intelligence can be domain specific, but I'd be careful going to far with this. It is _not_ obviously the case that "anyone who can think critically leans towards the Democratic party", and putting that forward seems like an exceptionally dangerous bubble to build.

"anyone who can think critically leans towards the Democratic party" isn't something anyone who's actually intelligent would ever say.

It's exactly what a partisan reddit midwit would say and they're overrepresented when it comes to Elon Musk hatred.

There used to be less of that on HN, my theory is younger accounts that are more politically extreme/lefty are now here as the younger generation graduates school and posts more on HN.

There's some historical irony too since communism came out of highly educated academic elites and is responsible for an enormous amount of death and value destruction. Ideological driven academics that think they're better than everyone are particularly good at crafting insane ideologies someone outside of that insular community would not, then leveraging institutional and cultural power to force it on everyone else. The woke and gender ideologies share similar origins, same for DEI.

It's a political and ideological monoculture and it's a dangerous mixture of incredibly confidently smug and wrong.

Worth picking up Peter Thiel's first book which goes into this in some detail (he wrote it pretty young, observing the early start of this when he was at Stanford). It's wildly prescient and was from the mid 90s iirc.

Do you think Pew research is a democrat shill body?

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideo...

I'm very midwitted. 50% of the planet is below the mean after all..

What is "education"? Is it degrees? There are a lot of problems with this. It's hardly a sign that someone "thinks critically".

A lot mediocre students I knew in school stayed on to do more school because they were not able to do something else. A lot of degrees and classes are frankly bullshit and this problem has gotten worse since the 60s - the details matter. Time wasted studying pseudo-intellectual nonsense doesn't imply someone has a better understanding of the world than someone else (often the opposite) - just that they wasted time getting indoctrinated in a particular culture (often subsidized by others if not the taxpayer).

What about the people doing interesting and useful things in society, building stuff, creating wealth - what these people think matters a lot more than someone that got a PHD on olfactory ethics. Not all education is equal.

Even then, the meta analysis matters less than the details of the actual underlying argument. Appeal to authority and experts is a poor substitute for rigorous good faith debate of the actual issues.

There's a reason William F. Buckley said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the phone book than by the faculty members from Harvard.

"I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."

So it's not that I dispute the data that there's a lefty bias in universities (there obviously is), I dispute what that actually means.

> So it's not that I dispute the data that there's a lefty bias in universities (there obviously is), I dispute what that actually means.

The issue at hand isn't perceived bias in universities, it's voting tendencies of people who have higher education.

PS, this conversation is a waste of both of our times. I won't be continuing it. Because there is no good faith either side. I'm certainly not going to display any and I aver you aren't either, but you can judge for yourself.