Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • (FB 1546804687 Timestamp) GOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE.

    (FB 1546804687 Timestamp) GOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE. I prefer we target the virtue spectrum from stoicism (little agency), to epicureanism (personal agency, to aristocracy (political agency) rather than a universal. The technique serves the mind no matter what virtues we seek to give it, but that does not mean ‘monotheism’ so to speak in that we must all seek the same. We each have different agency. We require goals that provide mindfulness in accordance with our agency.

  • (FB 1546790065 Timestamp) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN ITALIAN IQ —

    (FB 1546790065 Timestamp) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN ITALIAN IQ —“30% southern admixture in Piemonte lowered the IQ by 2.2 points. Thus the genotypic difference between Northern and Southern Italy is 2.2/0.3= 7.33 IQ points.”— A lot of this was literacy. This is the reason for china vs india. Literacy = programming. ITALY VS INDIA (SIMILAR STORIES) Truthful testimony, literacy, hard science, and hard social science (tort law) eliminate error.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1546803700 Timestamp) STEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky
    (worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology). from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/ THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelson’s Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews: Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1] The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.” There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546797162 Timestamp) Remodeling a home…. Woman, applying muscle: “Why am I the man in this relationship?” Man, with power tool: “Why are you the man in all your relationships?” Doh!!!!

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546793702 Timestamp) —“One genius can change the world, a million smart guys can not.”—John Jones Um…. not quite. One genius can REVOLUTIONIZE the world, a million smart people can and do change it constantly. Even such, lone geniuses are almost non-existent, since it appears to take three generations to cook a genius in a field, and we tend to memorialize the first when it’s usually two or three that result from that cooking.

  • (FB 1546790065 Timestamp) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN ITALIAN IQ —

    (FB 1546790065 Timestamp) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN ITALIAN IQ —“30% southern admixture in Piemonte lowered the IQ by 2.2 points. Thus the genotypic difference between Northern and Southern Italy is 2.2/0.3= 7.33 IQ points.”— A lot of this was literacy. This is the reason for china vs india. Literacy = programming. ITALY VS INDIA (SIMILAR STORIES) Truthful testimony, literacy, hard science, and hard social science (tort law) eliminate error.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1546896852 Timestamp) by Aaron Kahland The answer can, in part, be explained by how the low intelligent play the prisoner’s dilemma game compared with the highly intelligent. The research can be found here: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55383/1/MPRA_paper_55383.pdf The study found that —‘…it is cognitively demanding to sustain cooperation in a ten-round repeated prisoner’s dilemma. … In our experiment, as in the twin study of Segal and Hershberger (1999), pairs of players with higher cognitive ability are substantially better at cooperating. Further, we find that is the cognitive ability of a pair of players, and not the ability of an individual player, that predicts cooperation.’— High IQ leads to higher rates of co-operation. Trust is both a consequence of and necessity for long term co-operation or multi-co-operations. And this gets to the crux of why Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s discussion of IQ is so fundamentally flawed. It isn’t about the individual – it is about the group. To paraphrase Clinton, ‘it’s the group stupid!’

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1546896852 Timestamp) by Aaron Kahland The answer can, in part, be explained by how the low intelligent play the prisoner’s dilemma game compared with the highly intelligent. The research can be found here: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/55383/1/MPRA_paper_55383.pdf The study found that —‘…it is cognitively demanding to sustain cooperation in a ten-round repeated prisoner’s dilemma. … In our experiment, as in the twin study of Segal and Hershberger (1999), pairs of players with higher cognitive ability are substantially better at cooperating. Further, we find that is the cognitive ability of a pair of players, and not the ability of an individual player, that predicts cooperation.’— High IQ leads to higher rates of co-operation. Trust is both a consequence of and necessity for long term co-operation or multi-co-operations. And this gets to the crux of why Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s discussion of IQ is so fundamentally flawed. It isn’t about the individual – it is about the group. To paraphrase Clinton, ‘it’s the group stupid!’

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547050046 Timestamp) Women touch and hug men to calm them. Imagine if we could silence women by hugging them? I think my life would be perfect. lolz (humor)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547050046 Timestamp) Women touch and hug men to calm them. Imagine if we could silence women by hugging them? I think my life would be perfect. lolz (humor)