Samstag, 22. November 2025

Infinite Browsing Mode:

Pete Davis:

"You’ve probably had this experience: It’s late at night and you start browsing Netflix, looking for something to watch. You scroll through different titles, you watch a couple of trailers, you even read a few reviews—but you just can’t commit to watching any given movie. Suddenly it’s been thirty minutes and you’re still stuck in Infinite Browsing Mode, so you just give up. You’re too tired to watch anything now, so you cut your losses and fall asleep.

I’ve come to believe that this is the defining characteristic of my generation: keeping our options open."

Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog:

ChatGPT:

"Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog is an unusual corner of the German science-blog landscape. It’s run by Erwin Schmidt, who publishes at a remarkable pace: short notes, quotes, excerpts from books, and occasional reflections on psychology, cognition, biology, and culture. Instead of long essays, the blog offers a steady stream of bite-sized entries — sometimes several per day — that read more like a personal research notebook than a polished magazine.

Strengths

  • Breadth of topics: cognition, evolutionary biology, behavioural science, philosophy of mind, science literacy. If you enjoy jumping across scientific disciplines, the variety is appealing.

  • Literature-driven: many posts pull directly from scientific or nonfiction sources. You often get interesting quotes you might not have stumbled upon otherwise.

  • Low-threshold reading: posts are short and accessible, usually a paragraph or two. It’s easy to dip in for five minutes and pick up something stimulating.

  • Honest, personal voice: Schmidt doesn’t pretend the blog is an academic journal. It’s transparent about being a “Sachblog” — a factual, curiosity-driven project.

Weaknesses

  • Shallow depth: the high posting frequency means most entries offer minimal context or critical interpretation. A reader expecting deep synthesis or original analysis won’t find it here.

Who will enjoy it

The blog fits readers who:

  • like to browse scientific ideas in small doses,

  • appreciate eclectic reading,

  • don’t mind that the signal-to-noise ratio varies,

  • use blog posts as springboards to look up primary literature.

Who won’t

If you expect careful argumentation, consistent methodological grounding, or editorial quality control, this blog will likely frustrate you. It’s a notebook, not a journal.

Verdict

Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog isn’t trying to be authoritative. It works best as a curiosity feed: scattered glimpses into psychology, science, and culture. With the right expectations — and a healthy amount of critical thinking — it can be a surprisingly fertile source of ideas."

Depth:

"People write superficial things because they’re experimenting, thinking aloud, or just showing up. Depth usually comes when you decide, intentionally: Now I’m going to push something farther.” " (e.g., women may like to push a relationship toward marriage - marriage/male commitment as the female climax)

-> Pushing something farther is the real intellectual orgasm.

"When you stay with a thought long enough that it produces something new — that does feel like a mental climax."

"the moment you intentionally press an idea beyond the surface — that’s where the real satisfaction is."

-----

“the real reward lies after the obvious part.”

“Sit with it past the first layer”

“How far could this idea unfold if I let it?”

“When your brain wants to stop, that’s where the real work begins.
If you push past that point, you’ll get to insights you didn’t expect.”

“Depth isn’t a project.
It’s a shift in how you engage.”

“It’s not that you can’t go deeper — it’s that you’ve reached the core of the idea you’re working on.”

“descent – concentration – friction – breakthrough - peak

Once you’ve hit that peak, you can’t force more depth immediately.

You need a pause, a breath, a shift — and then you can choose a new direction.”

-----

"real insight requires sustained concentration past the point where your brain signals it's done with the obvious parts. That friction point where you want to stop is exactly where the valuable work begins."

"Real depth is when you've exhausted what's obvious"

-----

"The discomfort of staying with one idea isn't a bug — it's the signal that you're working at the edge of your current understanding."

"Most intellectual discomfort comes from the gap between wanting resolution and not having it yet. Depth lives in that gap."

"Staying with one idea past comfort feels unnatural because our brains evolved to scan for novelty, not to excavate meaning."

"There's a restlessness that comes about 20 minutes into real thinking — your mind starts offering you anything else to consider. That restlessness is the threshold."

"The itch to check something else, to pivot, to 'just quickly look at' — that's not distraction, that's avoidance of the friction where insight forms."

"You know you're working at depth when continuing feels slightly suffocating, like you're running out of the obvious things to think."

"If you can sit with an idea through three waves of 'I'm done with this,' you'll find the fourth wave brings something genuinely new."

"The idea doesn't actually change. Your relationship to it does. That's what depth is — achieving a new quality of attention to what was already there."

"Staying uncomfortable with a single idea long enough is how you move from having thoughts about something to actually thinking through it."

-----

"You can't schedule breakthroughs, but you can schedule the conditions that make them possible — sustained attention past the point of boredom."

"Intellectual depth requires the same commitment as any craft: returning to the same space until you've exhausted its possibilities."

-----

"That moment — the decision to push ..."

"You can't schedule breakthroughs, but you can schedule the conditions that make them possible — sustained attention past the point of boredom."

"Most ideas never reach depth simply because no one stayed with them long enough."

"You don’t stumble into depth. You earn it by refusing to stop at the first satisfying version of a thought."

"The first layer is familiar. The second is uncomfortable. The third is where the idea finally starts telling you something."

"Obvious is just the entrance. People mistake it for the destination."

"Nothing worth writing sits on the surface."

"Depth is attention slowed down enough to notice what you usually step over."

"Every serious idea has a gravity of its own — you feel yourself dropping into it before anything happens."

"Your brain hates the unknown enough to pretend the first answer is the final answer."

"Discomfort is the sign you’ve stopped repeating yourself and started encountering something real."

"Depth feels like running out of air because you're no longer coasting — you're diving."

"Mastery isn’t built by chasing insights but by returning to the same question until it gives way."

-----

"The first thought is foreplay. Depth is when you finally stop being polite to the idea." "You know you’re deep when the idea starts resisting you like a living thing that doesn’t want to be known." "Real thinking is slow, erotic violation of the obvious." "Most people stop when the thought feels “good enough.” That’s the intellectual equivalent of pulling out."

"Depth is the art of remaining consciously uncomfortable while everyone else goes soft."

"Every shallow take is a condom on experience—safe, clean, and absolutely no chance of conception." "The obvious is loud. Depth is almost silent." "Most people quit thinking the moment the idea stops entertaining them." "Depth is the quiet violence of refusing to be satisfied." "Thinking stops being fun right before it becomes irreversible." "Real depth feels like trespassing inside your own head." "Most insights are buried under a thin layer of “good enough.”" "The idea doesn’t get bigger. Your tolerance for ambiguity does." "Every time you think “I’ve said all there is to say,” the idea quietly laughs." "The surface is democratic. Depth is aristocratic; it only reveals itself to those who refuse to leave."

The Teakettle Principle:



That's why, whenever one reduces a new problem to a problem already solved, one says in jest that one is applying 'the teakettle principle'.

Notation:

If the notation is adapted to the discoveries..., the work of thought is marvelously shortened.

(G. Leibniz)

Mathematics is the art of calling different things by the same name.

(H. Poincare)

The Weighted Mean:

Does the average person understand the concept of the weighted mean?

Probably not.

Terence Tao:

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/

Depth and Breadth:

"People who know rare or difficult things or can solve very complex problems also generally know a lot more than do most people of the rather ordinary kinds of words and facts that many people know. Persons with poor reasoning and problem-solving ability also possess much less common knowledge about the world around them. Brighter persons automatically pick up more information from any experience afforded by their environment."

Arthur R. Jensen

LLMs as Toys:

Devon Erikson:

"Large Language Models, in their current form, are a big nothing burger. Some people are excited about the nothing burger. Some people are terrified of the nothing burger. Silicon Valley is breathlessly slavering over new ways they can sell the nothing burger. Our civilization as a whole is poised to invest a trillion dollars in the nothing burger. But there is nothing on the burger. So why does anyone think there is? Well, it's a novelty, for one thing. Look, you can talk to the computer. In English. And it can answer you. In English. Wow, that's convenient. And fun. And, above all, humans are curious. So something new, convenient, and fun is the very definition of a toy. And people want to play with it, to bat it around like a feather or a ball of string, and see what it can do. And for a certain period, they are willing to pay $20/month for the experience. But it goes deeper than that. Before we taught computers to talk, most humans, except for a few cognitive science specialists and a handful of very deep thinkers, suffered from a fundamental misconception about what "intelligence" is. They all thought it was the ability to speak. To turn ideas into language. And they thought humans can speak because they are smart, sapient, sentient, self-aware, conscious, ensouled, whatever you want to call it. Well, they were wrong. We don't talk because we are smart. We talk because we have subsections of the brain specifically evolved for talking. People who study the brain already knew that, but they often hadn't fully considered the implications, and were swayed by the prevailing cultural idea that eloquence and intelligence were the same thing. Some people still believed this after 8 years of Barack Obama as president. So now we have machines that can talk, and people think that's cool, but the machines can't really do anything, or at least they can't do anything right, because They don't have a world model. They don't have an imagination. They don't have desires. They don't have executive function. So of course they lie to you. That's what a glib talking device does when it's not backed up by allegiance to an objective model of reality. Really, after 8 years of Barack Obama, more people should have realized this. Here's how I think intelligence works, which I figured out from watching my cat learn how to use doorknobs: 1. You need an internal representation of your world, distilled from observation. Imagination. 2. This model needs to include not just what is, but causes and effects. Understanding. 3. You need to be able to imagine hypothetical, fictional versions of this world, which are slightly different than it actually is, in some respect. Possibilities. 4. You need to have goals and desires, so you can decide which of these possibilities you like. Choices. 5. You need to be able to tell a hypothetical story, using this understanding, of how to bring the possibility you have chosen to reality. Plans. This is the set of capabilities that we call "intelligence". And until we have a computer with these capabilities, we won't have a computer that we can experience as "intelligent" in any meaningful sense. And building "better" LLMs doesn't get us there. Not only does the Machine God not lie ahead on that path, neither does an ordinary human being who likes football and daytime television. No matter how glib and eloquent you make them, they'll still be as dumb as a sack of wet hammers. Sure, LLMs are progress. Language processing is something that a true machine intelligence will need in order to understand us, and tell us things. But the ability to speak English does not make a human, being any more than the ability to draw pictures, drive a car, or play chess."

Standards:


Many people really do say that if you cannot find evidence on a topic that meet the usual high standards of nearby academic fields, you should refuse to think about or have opinions on that topic.

College:


One reason that women have always gone to college is to find a pool of men filtered for intelligence and conscientiousness. College is an expensive, time intensive and ineffective way to filter for quality men, but, in secular networks, it's one of the only ways. A certain set of men who evaluate women predominantly on attractiveness have trouble understanding how much rides on women's partner choice being adequately discerning- that one wrong step can lead a woman to be tethered to, and making copies of, someone subpar.

Suspicion of Restraint:


"Fundamental to liberalism is a suspicion of restraint, which inevitably becomes suspicion of human relationships. It promises liberation from every last tie until we are free of everything, including each other."

Hypergamy:


Hypergamy is typical and advantageous. It is not the preference itself that causes problems but the miscalibration of expectations. People often overestimate what is realistically within reach in a stratified mating market. People can only select from the distribution that is actually available to them, not the idealised distribution they imagine. Both sexes tend to inflate their own mate value because a degree of self delusion is psychologically adaptive. The upper tail of male traits is mathematically thin. Very few men are wealthy, brilliant or unusually stable. The upper tail of female traits is also thin. Extremely attractive women who also possess warmth, stable affect, and the traits needed for long term pair bonding are rare. Attractiveness itself follows a normal curve, and the clustering of additional personality traits makes the upper tail even narrower. Hypergamy functions well when people understand these biological and statistical constraints. The disappointment people experience comes from overestimating what is possible, not from the preference itself. This also explains why certain people become intensely abusive towards others online when they signal physical, educational or socioeconomic success. The individuals who express the most anger at others or their lot in life tend to come from two overlapping categories. One is people with narcissistic traits, who hold inflated self assessments and react intensely when reality conflicts with their internal rating. The other is individuals with lower underlying mate value, who face scarcity, competition and chronic rejection. These two profiles reinforce each other. Narcissistic self inflation masks low mate value, and low mate value deepens narcissistic defensiveness. The anger is not ideological. It is a psychological reaction to the collision between perceived entitlement and statistical constraints. If you are pleased, content and happy with your life and your mate, it means something simple but powerful. You won at least some valuable traits in the genetic lottery. Enough intelligence, enough stability, enough attractiveness, enough pro social temperament to place you in a functional part of the mating distribution. However, that positioning is largely a matter of chance rather than earned merit. This is why a little humility is appropriate. Many of the traits that make life and relationships go smoothly are not achievements per se. They are endowments. People who feel satisfied in love and secure in their partnerships are often standing on foundations they did not build themselves. Recognising this takes the moral heat out of the discussion. It frames success in mating for what it really is: an interaction between luck, biology and the structure of the distribution itself. ----- "No son is ever going to look around the McMansion, look at mom, and say: "I wish you had settled for less, been less predatory." "