[clueless]

In a clean game-theoretic terms, without making any moral or ideological claims about “who is smarter”, we’ll treat underlying advantage as any positional asset (intelligence, wealth, charisma, skill, social capital, etc.). The question is: If a subset of players has an advantage in a repeated, large-group game, how do they best play to maximize payoff and stability?

Here's the strategy chatgpt came up with (amongst many other):

What Not to Say (Avoid These)

Don’t describe intelligence or talent as intrinsic, innate, or permanent. This triggers resentment and identity defense.

Don’t use language that signals “I am ahead of you.”

Don’t use your advantage to win every interaction—save leverage for important conflicts.

People tolerate talent. They hate being made aware of being lower in the hierarchy.

_____

Is it possible the backlash to Watson could be viewed from this game theocratic perspective, and not that he was racist and wrong?

[prmph]

Hmmm, let's see.

How many people died in wars in the 20th century? How many of them did NOT originate in Europe and Asia?

How much of climate change that has fouled up the earth we depend is NOT attributable to economic activity in the west?

Is there a western/Asian country where late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of of the common has not taken hold?

I could go on...

Are these evidence of intelligence? This is not a rhetorical question.

[clueless]

arguably I'd say wars can be generally indicative of intelligence. Higher-ability groups are more likely to choose war when their greater power raises the expected payoff of fighting. Climate change is also related to intelligence as it can argued that the more advance societies do end up consuming/producing more and thus create more Climate related waste. The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with.

I'm not sure I understand your point around late-stage capitalism and the devaluation of the common...

Are you really arguing that the western world has not been more advanced?

[prmph]

The European/Asian wars of the 20th century (ironically started by people who thought of themselves as superior races) wiped out ten of millions of lives and an untold amount of wealth. It led to the collapse of entire empires and nations. Surely you are not claiming that the wars were a net positive, are you? One indicator of a lack of intelligence is engaging in actions that are against your own interests.

Also, with climate change, may I remind you of quote from Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy:

> I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

Industrialization followed this pattern. Shitting where you live is a textbook case of stupid.

> The end result of it might not be desirable, but probably something these advance societies can deal with.

The people dying in extreme floods and fires tell me otherwise, and it's likely only going to get worse.