Of course. But musical practice and training can add to mindfulness, and if in groups, can provide same returns as team sports – which appears to be the most important training after mindfulness. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1217291523768901632
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-15 12:46:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217427810383540225
True. Because they rely on information (patterns) not on empathy. https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1216954106406998016
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-14 05:39:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216957884849967104
I would say that it’s in man’s interest to be good, therefore man is naturally good. I fwe watch our ape cousins, and look at the archaeology, it is very hard to believe man is originally good. Just the opposite.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 22:32:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216850618410729472
Reply addressees: @eruditenights
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216844998705942528
IN REPLY TO:
@eruditenights
@curtdoolittle Curt, Confucian texts posit man as “originally good” is this in line with propertarian thinking that man is basically rational, I could clarify with a cliche quote but I’ll lay off of using it
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216844998705942528
Is it just me or is a certain non-western ethnicity, diligently working to build medical careers, absolutly incompetent – so much so that an ordinary ethnically western nurse is far more likely to produce a correct diagnosis? A 100% failure rate with these people. Terrible.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 20:58:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216826754280587265
YES MEN LOVE WOMEN WITH MASCULINE COG BIAS.. BUT
Humans require agency.
A masculine cognitive bias favors agency.
I am not sure the world would populate very successfully with exclusively male-minded females.
My present understanding is that women evolved to carry a very heavy emotional cognitive load necessary for rearing multiple children.
Agency appears to develop in women as children increase in number – especially with three or more.
I would prefer we understand how to manage both men’s and women’s talents than claim that a single ideal is optimum.
Autism is a superpower. Yes.
But so is extending the female nervous system to perceive infants, toddlers, children, and young adults.
It’s up to men to take over at that point.
And that appears to be where we are failing.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 18:11:00 UTC
RT @curtdoolittle: @SiliconGroyper @charlesmurray Correct Richard Haier wrote a book on Neuroscience that is accessible to general college…
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:48:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216779164264648704
Correct Richard Haier wrote a book on Neuroscience that is accessible to general college level audiences.
FIND IT HERE:
http://www.richardhaier.com/the-neuroscience-of-intelligence
The counter-revolution against postmodern pseudoscience is almost complete.
(We do not have it in the Propertarian digital library)
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:48:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216779132085907457
Reply addressees: @SiliconGroyper @charlesmurray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216764826854182912
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216764826854182912
2) If your intellectual journey was through the computer science (AI), law, and economics and physics channels, you see us as mere gene machines using language to rationalize seizure of opportunities,and that few of us possess any agency whatsoever,and we only do by randomness.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:22:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216772618965200897
Reply addressees: @DuchesneRicardo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216771972522283013
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@DuchesneRicardo 1) Thinking about this a bit. … If your intellectual journey was through the literary channel you see the world as the world of agency. If your intellectual journey was through psychology and soft science channels, you see the world of limited agency. But …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1216771972522283013
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@DuchesneRicardo 1) Thinking about this a bit. … If your intellectual journey was through the literary channel you see the world as the world of agency. If your intellectual journey was through psychology and soft science channels, you see the world of limited agency. But …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1216771972522283013
WE ARE COMPATIBLE NO EQUAL
In the division of sensory, perceptual, cognitive, preferential, labor, men and women are compatible, not equal. We are not equal in any meaningful way, because ‘meaningful’ means ‘exceptional’. Stop thinking of people as ideals (that’s a monotheistic evil cancer of the mind) and think of us as extended families with different senses, perceptions, and skills, where we negotiate and often cooperate. As such a coincidence of wants provides the equals sign – cooperation – in the mathematics of calculating human existence.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:21:00 UTC
1) Thinking about this a bit. … If your intellectual journey was through the literary channel you see the world as the world of agency. If your intellectual journey was through psychology and soft science channels, you see the world of limited agency. But …
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-13 17:20:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216771972522283013
Reply addressees: @DuchesneRicardo
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216754002404114433
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1216754002404114433