Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • No, EQ Is Not a Thing, But….

    WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular) The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing. Class Behaviors are a Thing. As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait. AND WHEREAS Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors. THEREFORE So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior. AND THEREFORE So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists. IN OTHER WORDS Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms. Curt.
  • CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE? Thought and Language. It’s entirely possible to t

    CAN WE THINK WITHOUT LANGUAGE?

    Thought and Language.

    It’s entirely possible to think without language. But when we use language in our thinking we can calculate with much greater commensurability, much greater greater precision, much greater density, than we can when just imagining – just as when we use writing and symbols we can calculate with greater commensurability, greater precision, and greater density. language produces symbols in the mind that allow greater computational efficiency, just as symbols we compose in the real world produce greater computational efficiency, just as formulae and databases produce greater computational efficiency. The question is why our brains can use ‘names’ to create a stack of concepts (although very limited) that we can compare relatively accurately, the way our use of written marks (symbols) lets us reference whole stories accurately.

    Chomsky isn’t quite right that we can’t say anything abut thought without language. It’s that some of us can preserve greater short term state (memory) they way some of us can compose music, memorize long sets of number, practice doing mathematical calculations, memorize lines of a script or poem, than can others. Just as some of us can compose only phrases, some sentences, some arguments, and others long explanatory narratives.

    Thought consists, as does language, (and all grammars) of continuous recursive disambiguation, and symbols (names) allow us to compare, and language (streams of words) allow us to continuously manufacture different lengths of memory, to produce different lengths of forecasts (imagination).

    In computers we think of buffers. In electronics, capacitors and ballasts. In hydraulics, reservoirs. But for thoughts we use short term memory: the current context, currently revised, as new information is added, new forecasts made, in an ongoing process of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    What we have seen since the 1990’s is the slow replacement of the idea of computational efficiency with the introduction (thankfully, and finally) of economics – which accounts for time and effort necessary to produce a continuous stream speech in real time.

    We have also seen the increasing use of of ‘neural economy’, which also brings demand, supply, and time into the discourse as the (correct) replacement for efficiency.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 16:10:00 UTC

  • The Quality of Parenting Is Determined by Values

    —“I don’t think there is any non-material advantage that high-IQ brings to raising children. The advantages to IQ are all endogenous. Working-class folks with excellent values are going to out-parent upper-middle class couples who are non-present and ‘compensate’ via indulgence. The quality of parenting is determined by values.“— Aaron Kahland

  • The Quality of Parenting Is Determined by Values

    —“I don’t think there is any non-material advantage that high-IQ brings to raising children. The advantages to IQ are all endogenous. Working-class folks with excellent values are going to out-parent upper-middle class couples who are non-present and ‘compensate’ via indulgence. The quality of parenting is determined by values.“— Aaron Kahland

  • Limits of The Big 5 Model?

    —“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them. (b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic). (c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity. (d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture. So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.

  • Limits of The Big 5 Model?

    —“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them. (b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic). (c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity. (d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture. So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.

  • I think the author’s point is that people of good character tend to pass on good

    I think the author’s point is that people of good character tend to pass on good things independently of their intelligence. I try to teach people that intellience should be considered a personality trait and it is that collection of traits that together compose the person


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 15:53:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009101931510452225

    Reply addressees: @GMikailovich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009035451645059073


    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/1009035451645059073

  • “It’s almost like we *are* animals, with an extra hunting tool known as the pref

    —“It’s almost like we *are* animals, with an extra hunting tool known as the prefrontal cortex”— Tyler Scott


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 12:07:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009044918734655488

  • LIMITS OF THE BIG 5 MODEL? —“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are

    LIMITS OF THE BIG 5 MODEL?

    —“Would you say the limits of Big 5 Measurement are a model resolution issue or a fundamental issue?”—George Hobbs

    a) there appears to be a correlation between the five/six factors and reward systems. So there may be a biological basis for them.

    (b) there is pretty wide consistency with these measures EXCEPT with east asians for whom some of the model does not fit.(As far as I know it’s not just linguistic).

    (c) It looks like there are a series of problems with the terms we are using which are a little freudian rather than stated in terms of evolutionary necessity.

    (d) we can measure relative intensity (high, medium, low) somewhat reliably at least within culture.

    So I think it’s a maturity problem where we are waiting for the Top Down Survey model of psychology to develop commensurability with brain structure, and brain structure to be expressed commensurably with evolutionary history.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 11:34:00 UTC

  • NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT…. WHEREAS Intelligence is a Thing Personality Trait

    NO, EQ IS NOT A THING, BUT….

    WHEREAS

    Intelligence is a Thing

    Personality Traits are a Thing. (Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and Neuroticism in particular)

    The Solipsism vs Empathy vs Autism spectrum is a Thing.

    Class Behaviors are a Thing.

    As such it’s (EQ) a questionable proxy for personality traits rather than intelligence. And (I am in the camp) that we should treat intelligence as a personality trait.

    AND WHEREAS

    Higher IQ people are demonstrably more moral than Low IQ people – yes. Although (a) they can afford to be, and (b) they are also less likely to have other defective personality traits and cultural/class behaviors.

    THEREFORE

    So the problem is that people who argue scientifically know EQ is not a thing but pseudoscience that attributes an equality to intelligence to behavioral properties, when in general even intelligence should be classified as a personality trait, and it is personality traits in toto that determine behavior.

    AND THEREFORE

    So what is going on when we criticize use of EQ, is fighting a common problem we deal with in leftism, whether or not one is actually arguing a leftist position, but using the pseudoscientific language of leftists.

    IN OTHER WORDS

    Either learn to use the relevant personality traits or at least recognize you are talking in pseudoscientific nonsense terms.

    Curt.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 10:37:00 UTC