http://x.com/i/article/1918209879942283265
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:44:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918210083403776357
http://x.com/i/article/1918209879942283265
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:44:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918210083403776357
Why Humans Prefer Supernormal and Supernatural Explanations for the Mundane
Thesis:
Humans exhibit a persistent tendency to mythologize observable but misunderstood phenomena—especially those that appear to exceed presumed contemporary means—due to evolved biases in agency detection, reward-seeking, and status signaling. This behavior emerges as an adaptive misfire of otherwise functional cognitive systems under conditions of informational opacity.
1. Cognitive Incentives
Hyperactive Agency Detection: Evolution favors false positives in the detection of intentionality. Ambiguous outcomes—such as unexplained precision—trigger reflexive attribution to agents, which are then inflated to superhuman or supernatural status.
Temporal Compression and Technological Amnesia: Humans compress historical time and underestimate the iterative power of simple techniques over long durations. The loss of craft knowledge combined with modern bias toward high-efficiency solutions leads to disbelief in ancient mundane methods.
Valence-Driven Bounty-Seeking: The dopaminergic system treats anomalies as signals of hidden opportunity—“undiscovered treasure.” This produces a preference for open mysteries over resolved facts. Mythic narratives exploit this loop by offering explanatory closure in the form of supernormal causality, while keeping the sense of discovery open.
2. Social Incentives
Status Signaling via Esoterica: Belief in or propagation of exotic explanations serves as a coalition signal of special knowledge. In domains of low verifiability, mythic claims gain prestige simply by implying access to hidden truths. This displaces epistemic honesty with memetic competition.
Aesthetic Matching: The human mind seeks correspondence between the perceived magnificence of an effect and the presumed magnificence of its cause. The drudgery of labor or primitive tools is rejected because it undermines the perceived dignity of the result.
3. Systemic Consequence
This cluster of biases produces spontaneous myth-making:
Anomaly → Agency detection → Reward activation → Status signaling → Myth propagation
This loop results in the cultural elevation of the unexplained into the mythical—despite available and testable explanations. The persistence of fringe theories about ancient technology exemplifies this failure of epistemic discipline.
4. Interpretation Within Natural Law
From the standpoint of Natural Law, this process is a parasitism upon cooperative epistemology. It replaces operational truth with narrative satisfaction, thereby undermining the commons of truth required for reciprocal cooperation and intertemporal civilization. It exploits ignorance for prestige rather than resolving it for progress.
5. Systemic Insight
Mythicization is not due to absence of explanation but the presence of misaligned incentives—psychological, social, and epistemic—under constraints of limited memory, craft loss, and motivated reasoning.
-CD
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:44:08 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1918209879942283265
again, empirical rather than theoretical. great work. still empirical (descriptive).
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:29:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918206134986653889
again, empirical rather than theoretical. great work. still empirical (descriptive).
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:29:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918206134986653889
Reply addressees: @bierlingm @Hitchslap1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918202430593929538
We research differences in ignorance error bias deceit fraud sedition and treason – effectively we study negative bias (lying as a means of studying moral intuitions). We map it back to neuroscience.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:27:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918205710481146271
We research differences in ignorance error bias deceit fraud sedition and treason – effectively we study negative bias (lying as a means of studying moral intuitions). We map it back to neuroscience.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 07:27:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918205710481146271
Reply addressees: @HexaField
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1909514584794579100
Edit: “… must as the aristocracy.. ” -> “… just as the aristocracy… “.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 06:58:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918198412555739620
Tests were softened to be more equally distributed between verbal and mathematical in order to reduce the sex difference gap. I am not sure this wasn’t a useful correction.
The average is less meaningful than the narrower distribution of females vs males. The same is true of personalities (nature experiments with men, and maintains stability with women).
The meaningful difference is more a matter of verbal-pictoral-discrete-empirical vs physical-spatial-rotatioal-theoretical.
The meaningful difference is more a matter of the value of masculine (stem) vs feminine (relationship) fields.
The gap increases at the tails where there are literally no revolutionary thinkers among women – we can’t produce a single one despite all our efforts.
The test improvement I ask for is predictive capacity which I observe is a failing in the test system because it is difficult to test.
That’s the TLDR version 😉
Reply addressees: @Hitchslap1
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 06:56:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918197871943524352
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918161122886296022
IN REPLY TO:
@Hitchslap1
@curtdoolittle Thank you Curt. You’re a man of many talents. Since you mentioned it, may I ask briefly, if you believe the roughly 3 point mean IQ gap between men and women is due to differences in (g) or test constitution?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918161122886296022
ok. thinking.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 04:18:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918158031294288024
Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918157220514050429
IN REPLY TO:
@LukeWeinhagen
“So just as I am separating my personal website from the institute, in order to give the institute breathing room – distance from my early research work”
Really dislike this outcome.
I am against any “distancing”.
Move early work to an archive like
archive(.)naturallawinstitute(.)com, sure, to make the main site more navigable and make the search feature there more specifically functional to institute business.
But hiding from early work, i.e. “distancing”, is not at all what I was hoping to see.
I already believe too much has been removed from public access. I don’t want any of the harsh and ugly process of discovery hidden. I was hoping moving earlier materials to an archive branch of the site would allow for even more of the early efforts to be restored for public access.
It’s unfortunate that this has become the motivation.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918157220514050429
Of course. I try to stay current with the field. And additionally I can explain the neuroscience, and can delve into sex differences as well as cognitive differences as (g) increases
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 03:59:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918153410899263523
Reply addressees: @Hitchslap1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918128017345585659
IN REPLY TO:
@Hitchslap1
@curtdoolittle Thank you Curt. Very perspicacious reply. Have you read the results of the SMPY study as they relate to performance at the 99th percentile and above?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918128017345585659