Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • WRITING SKILLS Online writing has improved significantly since that paper was wr

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/how-well-can-you-communicate-over-email-or-blog-posts-how-about-in-person.htmlONLINE WRITING SKILLS

    Online writing has improved significantly since that paper was written. We err. We fail. We get slapped around. And we learn.

    Or at least, most people do.

    The three biggest problems with online discourse are: a) that it’s very difficult to negotiate a contract on the meaning of terms, and as such, most debates are eristic or autistic. b) that the medium does not tolerate the level of exposition needed to convey vast differences in the categories and judgements that are under discussion. c) almost no one, even the very best people, are able to articulate their positions by other than allegorical means, or without relying on the assumption that the methodology underlying their reasoning, is merely a convenience, not a representation or means of identifying true statements. (My glossary is fifty pages long. and it’s not anywhere near complete.)

    Conservatives are the worst offenders because they rely on sentimental, historical and allegorical concepts, which if fully articulated as human actions, are demonstrably true. But since they’re so poorly expressed, usually as post-religous moral statements, they are all but useless in debate.

    FWIW: I am absolutely nothing like my online persona, and everyone who meets me in person comments on it. Interpersonal relations are, well, personal. Debate online is political – purposeful. If I learned anything from the 20th century its that Friedman’s and Rothbard’s antagonistic relentlessness was more successful than Hayek’s modest civility.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-20 17:20:00 UTC

  • GOSSIP Back in Seattle for a few days. Hearing the usual industry gossip. (This

    GOSSIP

    Back in Seattle for a few days. Hearing the usual industry gossip. (This is still such a small town.) And, I suppose nothing should surprise me. But the daftness of human beings, and their ability to envision drama where none exists, never ceases to amaze me. How on earth do people come up with this stuff?

    Nothing ever happens to or with money without a lot of bankers and investors agreeing to it. The world is a mundane, bureaucratic, procedural place administrated by lawyers who are incentivized to over analyze everything.

    Each of us has a narrow view of the world, and an exaggerated concept of our place in it.

    This region is extremely simple. We had one company that created a lot of manufacturing and engineering jobs, that was overtaxed, over-regulated, and finally fled the state. We then won the lottery and got a second company that concentrated an unheard of amount of money in what was a previously semi-rural population. That company had an atypical organizational structure that asked purchasing decisions to me made by very junior people. That purchasing strategy was important when technology was new – since the older generation would not have been as aggressive or experimental – or cheap to hire.

    But times change. People learn. Competitors emerge. And the Innovator’s Dilemma (curse) and the rent-seeking and laziness, politicization and disutility of bureaucracy take their normal course. That company no longer spends money in the same manner. It’s stock no longer appreciates in value as it did. And it’s employees no longer posses the relative wealth that they did. And so the entire region is affected by those changes.

    And many people, who previously sold their skills and labor to that company, and because of it, who had an impression of themselves and their skills as special, scarce or unique, are now stunned and despondent over the change in their fortunes. They lived in homes, worked at companies, and built organizations, during a period, where the entire American economy was booming with debt, booming with cheap overseas products, and while at the same time, that regional company was exporting cash into a town with scarce resources, and a small population. Those frustrated people are competing the broader economy, not the unique and temporary economy that they were living in during the past. Like American laborers, who must now compete in the global economy against people who will work 14 hours a day doing the same work, people in this area must compete globally.

    Revel in our time. In what we had. But don’t expect that it is repeatable. Or that there is anything you, or the people you work for, or the politicians that supposedly administer our governments, could have done anything about. If you had the opportunity to live during the period from 1988 – 2008 in this area, then appreciate having had the joy of participating in one of the greatest times and places to live in human history. (Remember the fun of Entros? The art galleries prior to 2001? The multiple playhouses? The increase in great restaurants? The feeling that it would never end? Daily life when Neo came upon our movie screens? Remember when Redmond was the ‘sticks’, and when Bellevue didn’t have a skyscraper?)

    The American dream was first built on cheap land. Second on jobs that were possible because of cheap land. Third because the world went into a debilitating war. Fourth because of cheap credit made possible by the petrodollar and our postwar anti-communist military capability.

    But the world caught up. There was no malfeasance – on anyone’s part. It’s just the slow five hundred year grid, as industrial capitalism moved from the heartland of England to every nation in the world. People in Beijing and countless other cities are living the seattle experience today. We can envy them, or celebrate them.

    It’s a choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-17 17:22:00 UTC

  • During their schooling years, we ask our children to find their natural talents

    During their schooling years, we ask our children to find their natural talents and virtues. To find themselves. And the truth is, they don’t have any natural talents. It’s just whatever they spend 10,000 hours doing. So we don’t find ourselves, we maker ourselves, and asking children that question is actually destructive. It only forces them to be more introspective – self centered. When in fact, the world treats you far better if you try to master the art of satisfying the wants of others, rather than yourself. You only get to live your fantasy for having made the satisfaction of others come true. So Instead, we should ask our children what very obscure thing that they could imagine being really good at, and imagine enjoying, that others will pay them for.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-04 10:55:00 UTC

  • Is Membership In The 1% Club Education Or IQ?

    Greg Mankiw makes a case for graduate school education:

    Apart from their bank accounts, Gallup finds education to be the greatest difference between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and everyone else. The Gallup analysis reveals that 72% of the wealthiest Americans have a college degree, compared with 31% of those in the lower 99 percentiles. Furthermore, nearly half of those in the wealthiest group have postgraduate education, versus 16% of all others.

    But it’s not education that gets people into the 1%. It’s IQ and hard work. Education produces little more than signaling.

  • Is Membership In The 1% Club Education Or IQ?

    Greg Mankiw makes a case for graduate school education:

    Apart from their bank accounts, Gallup finds education to be the greatest difference between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and everyone else. The Gallup analysis reveals that 72% of the wealthiest Americans have a college degree, compared with 31% of those in the lower 99 percentiles. Furthermore, nearly half of those in the wealthiest group have postgraduate education, versus 16% of all others.

    But it’s not education that gets people into the 1%. It’s IQ and hard work. Education produces little more than signaling.

  • in the 1% Club? Education? No. it’s IQ

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/12/is-membership-in-the-1-club-education-or-iq/Membership in the 1% Club? Education? No. it’s IQ.


    Source date (UTC): 2011-12-11 20:46:00 UTC

  • Why Are Artificial Breasts All The Rage In Columbia?

    Why Are Artificial Breasts All The Rage In Columbia? http://www.capitalismv3.com/index.php/2011/12/why-are-artificial-breasts-all-the-rage-in-columbia/


    Source date (UTC): 2011-12-11 13:46:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/145862135963062273

  • Why Are Artificial Breasts All The Rage In Columbia?

    A friend posted a humorous advertisement from Columbia, where young women are advocating that ‘natural is better’. Someone asks why this kind of thing happens. An exacerbated interest in youth and sex is a cyclical expression of human behavior that is usually caused by the intersection of: (a) the ‘winter’ period of a civilization wherein the institutions that perpetuated the set of forgone opportunity costs we refer to as customs, myths, manners, ethics and morals are insufficient to coordinate status signals in the economy due to a combination of institutional calcification, and (b) a substantial increase in population causing an over representation of single people of mating age, and (c) a period of economic prosperity that enables the proletariat access to leisure — usually caused by an increase in technology or shift in trade routes. (Or a decline in the aged population as we saw after the plague as is demonstrated by 13th century french literature.) The synthetic historians have all discussed this process in one way or another. (Toynbee, Quigley, Durant, Spengler and Braudel.) Strauss and Howe address this somewhat in their books on cyclicality such as ‘Generations’.

  • Aren’t Meant To Be Friends. Men spend time with women to place a put on an optio

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMAWe Aren’t Meant To Be Friends.

    Men spend time with women to place a put on an option for sex. That’s the reason. That’s the only reason. Even if it’s a long option. Even if it’s an infinitely long option. Time is a cheap put. (Women’s gracious illusions to the contrary.) Somewhat interesting and intelligent women decrease the cost of the put. Hot dull women increase the cost of the put. Unattractive women decrease the utility of the return on the put. But its all about the put. Women just aren’t that interesting. Male empathy tends by way of testosterone to make them ‘feel’ abstractions, machines, and processes, not people – something few woman ever seem to be able to grasp.

    Now, if you find an educated and successful and honest woman over 50 or so, who was very attractive in her youth, she’ll give you a similar story about men: Mainly, that you should ‘try an athlete, try a troublemaker, try a musician’, to get ‘it’ out of your system, and then find yourself a decent man who w…


    Source date (UTC): 2011-12-09 09:11:00 UTC

  • An Anti-Masculine Bias In Pornography Actors?

    An article on slate that says that men are homophobic when watching pornography. In other words, this is another feminist-appealing anti-male rant.

    The straight male performer must be attractive enough to serve as a prop, but not so attractive that he becomes the object of desire.

    Complete nonsense. It’s all about self image and arousal. Men need to feel dominance. Men are aroused by feelings of dominance over a woman, for the same biological reason women are attracted to alphas that will dominate them (sexually) without being too threatening. Women have a sort of ‘marginal difference in attraction’ depending upon their degree of ‘alphaness’ in relation to other women. They are aroused by men that fit into the spectrum of ‘alphaness’ that is a comparative advantage without being a threat. Women ‘sort’ men that way. (It’s obvious isn’t it?) In porn, men don’t sort much. They take almost every single opportunity. In life, men take any opportunity that won’t harm their reputation with other men. Women take only those opportunities that won’t harm their reputation with other women. So, in pornography, it’s that men are ‘unaroused’ by the presence of a more dominant male who they see as a competitor, and therefore reduces their sense of dominance at that moment. In pornography, men want a stand-in that they can empathize with where they feel dominant. (Just as they feel by watching sports. This is the side effect of our ability to imitate.) Romantic, patient interludes are a female arousal bias not a male one. In fact, Men need to be taught romantic sexual behavior as a skill. It’s not native to male behavior, which thanks to testosterone is more aggressive, and far less patient. Women demonstrate their alpha desires too — just in different circumstances. Just as women who run cooking shows ‘can’t be too attractive’ or just as Oprah is a ‘safe’ counsellor to middle class white women. (Yes, those are both facts we have a lot of statistical data to support.) Its the same for both sexes. We need situational dominance. We need to feel our self image is fulfilling to us in relation to other human beings. It’s about the feeling of dominance (or not) that comes from our self image when imitating through observation. One commenter Lucas states the problem quite clearly:

    “I can’t speak for the rest of the men out there but my personal opinion is that watching a woman have a good time and thoroughly enjoying herself is what attracts me to the porn to begin with and I really don’t care what the dude looks like because I’m not watching the porn because of him I’m watching it because of her”

    (This article bothered me. It’s yet another self congratulatory absurdly feminist progressive framing of inter-gender relations that is counter to the facts. Men aren’t afraid of being turned on by homosexuality. They just viscerally react to it they way women react to sex with a dirty naked old man, with open bleeding sores, covered in vomit. It’s not complicated. It’s just gross. )