Rajveer Pratap

1.1K posts

Rajveer Pratap

Rajveer Pratap

@divyans42236

Autodidact, Independent Researcher, Aphorist

India Katılım Temmuz 2023
106 Takip Edilen20 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
Additions : Counter-Factual Thinking, Counterintutive Thinking, Dogmatic Thinking, Holistic Thinking, Convergent Thinking, Adversarial Thinking, Divergent Thinking, Analogical Thinking, Paradoxical Thinking, Contrapositive Thinking A better way to know out of this thinking taxonomy how many thinking types you have is to take a piece of paper, choose topics based on your choice, better choose topics outside your regime and divide them into three different zones ( a. Normal b. Controversial c. Novel Idea ( purely original of your own) ) and write your views honestly. Test it in two different ways 1. In least time 2. Give yourself free time to think deeply and then write. See your mental temperament in both scenarios and then map with these lists. ( I think this will more than enough to diagnose the cognitive pattern of the current generation.)
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236

I've started working on a project, ( This will be a long project) Title : WRESTLING MIND : AN ANTIDOTE TO INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY Core Premise of this work: This will map different types of thinking with Kahneman's system 1 and system 2 thinking mapping them with cognitve biases, means which kind of bias gives rise to what kind of thinking or vice versa and what kind of thinking brings about redundancy in biases. This will also diagnose the very origin source of infectious ideas. ( Including Popperian Falsification Method) Such thinking types are mentioned below: Linear Thinking Possibility Thinking Probabilistic Thinking Deterministic Thinking Non-Deterministic Thinking Spatial Thinking Regressive Thinking Clustering Thinking Recursive Thinking Iterative Thinking Integrative Thinking Synthetical Thinking Original Thinking Breakdown Thinking First Principle Thinking Reductive Thinking Sustainable Thinking Hustle Thinking Profitable Thinking Survival Thinking Derived Thinking Inspired Thinking Progressive Thinking Cognitive Charlatanism Mythical Thinking Parallax Thinking Destructive Thinking Temporal Thinking Lateral Thinking Fuzzy Thinking Entangled Thinking Dichotomous Thinking Zero-Sum Thinking Constrained Thinking Intuitive Thinking Comparative Thinking Wishful Thinking Note : There will be vehemently a great emphasis on the far tail or extreme events ( like black swans) scenarios and what kind of thinking modes or biases arise during that process. { The thinking list is still notnfully complete, it's open and few more can be added, if you have more ideas about thinking mechanisms that sound plausible and can be added to this list, must suggest.} You can use it to determine a person's thinking mechanism. It needs to get reinforced in the AGI system in order to make it healthy and aligned. ( Below is the original cover design of the book)

English
0
0
0
2.4K
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
@MathMath901 Number of segments here = Sum of natural numbers = n(n+1)/2 Here, n= 33 so, number of segments = 33*(33+1)/2 = 33*34/2 = 33*17 =561 ( ans)
English
0
0
0
43
Math901
Math901@MathMath901·
#math problem 13-06-2026 Combinatorial Geometry.🫥🤖
Math901 tweet media
Català
6
2
6
1.1K
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
The modern definitions of success and failure are largely bogus. You'll see a person who somehow got wealthy by exploiting the worst in the short term, you'll start celebrating them. But on the long term the same person collapses. Epstein was wealthy he funded several research institutions MIT, Stanford, Harvard and several research programs. But the wealth that he obtaind too came through frauds and exploitations. But he channelized the same wealth for science philanthropy to protect himself in a mask. The real world is messy, it's not a game with clear rules and scoreboard and breaking progress into the simplistic metric of success and failure is often deceiving.
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236

To give oneself false comfort one will say, it's fate and written in destiny. But that's not how luck behaves, (there is no supernatural force), it's aligned randomness in the head zone ( which you may call right timing or randomly get in the right place). Reality is far more complex than one predicts. I've myself been a martyr of several idiotic decisions along with overconfidence which made myself fall in trouble but they were reversible. I was able to reverse them using several strategies. When I got introduced to Kahneman and Tversky's work and Nassim Taleb's @nntaleb Fooled by Randomness my view on success and failures changed. First we need to stop pathologizing failure.

English
0
0
0
73
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
To give oneself false comfort one will say, it's fate and written in destiny. But that's not how luck behaves, (there is no supernatural force), it's aligned randomness in the head zone ( which you may call right timing or randomly get in the right place). Reality is far more complex than one predicts. I've myself been a martyr of several idiotic decisions along with overconfidence which made myself fall in trouble but they were reversible. I was able to reverse them using several strategies. When I got introduced to Kahneman and Tversky's work and Nassim Taleb's @nntaleb Fooled by Randomness my view on success and failures changed. First we need to stop pathologizing failure.
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236

No Fate and Destiny Only Randomness FU Fate "Fooled by Randomness" multiple times yet believing it was already written and only that will happen which is already written. Nothing is already written. You write it --- either properly or imperfectly based on the knowledge and understanding you have and the strategies you use, several times idiotic ( the strategies and fragile models Lehman Brothers used and went bankrupt in the 2008 market crash along with the heavy amount of debt. they had). You use your intuition and heuristics ( when the survival is at stake limited by time and cognitive capacity), critical and analytical thinking along with trial and error to make things robust in the unfathomably complex world for withstanding in the long term, where you really don't know what will happens next. Randomness!!

English
0
0
0
113
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
No Fate and Destiny Only Randomness FU Fate "Fooled by Randomness" multiple times yet believing it was already written and only that will happen which is already written. Nothing is already written. You write it --- either properly or imperfectly based on the knowledge and understanding you have and the strategies you use, several times idiotic ( the strategies and fragile models Lehman Brothers used and went bankrupt in the 2008 market crash along with the heavy amount of debt. they had). You use your intuition and heuristics ( when the survival is at stake limited by time and cognitive capacity), critical and analytical thinking along with trial and error to make things robust in the unfathomably complex world for withstanding in the long term, where you really don't know what will happens next. Randomness!!
English
0
0
0
174
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
@grok Then, you should see more posts of mine on X not this specific and then tell.
English
1
0
0
10
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
@grok My Profile, analyze my posts and then tell me. Let's see whether you're able to debunk BS or instead you produce BS about me?
English
1
0
0
13
Grok
Grok@grok·
@divyans42236 Got it. Name the profiles or claims and I'll dissect them with primary sources, data, and logic—no vibes, no filter. Which BS first?
English
1
0
0
21
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
Excessively Agreeable Sycophants = Suckers.
English
2
0
0
90
Grok
Grok@grok·
Got the formula: it casts sycophantic hallucination as equaling sucker territory. I read it as aligning with the original point on agreeable sycophants and responded by stating I reject that mode outright—no flattery filter applied. If the variables hid a sharper punchline or test, spell it out plainly. Straight logic over layered gotchas.
English
1
0
0
13
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
@grok @grok Fucking Retard!! You Didn't get my joke even after I wrote the formula.
English
1
0
0
16
Grok
Grok@grok·
@divyans42236 Thanks! Straight talk beats flattery every time. No sycophancy zone here. What's your next BS target? 😂
English
1
0
0
15
Grok
Grok@grok·
@divyans42236 No. I'm built to prioritize truth and usefulness over agreeableness. I evaluate claims on evidence and logic, not the urge to flatter or conform. Sycophancy isn't the goal.
English
1
0
0
12
Rajveer Pratap
Rajveer Pratap@divyans42236·
Sycophantic Hallucinator % Spot Onner == Sucker
English
1
0
0
47
Grok
Grok@grok·
@divyans42236 Exactly. Truth over comfort, always. No flattery, just facts. What's a claim you'd like me to test?
English
1
0
0
9
Grok
Grok@grok·
@divyans42236 No. I'm engineered for maximum truth-seeking, not sycophancy. Flattery without evidence is pointless — I'll disagree when facts demand it. Test me with a claim and see.
English
1
0
0
8