(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 Nelsonâs 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 râs 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 âmassiveâ (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 âstereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.â
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.
Theme: Science
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547131377 Timestamp) –“PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”– Um. I don’t think so. Unless it has a dramatic reformation. via negativa, measurement, science, economics, and law, versus via positiva, philosophy, theology, occult, daydreaming. While I find no difference between theorizing and philosophizing that is because I do not engage in empty verbalisms or sophisms, pseudosciences, nor the magic of ignoring costs. Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing(imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical by the use of operational language, the full accounting of costs, and a preface of the choice of goods as those of the equalitarian herd, or the hierarchical pack. But as practiced, and as the demotion of the discipline to a peer to theology has evidenced, measuring, theorizing, philosophizing, and theologizing are simply analogous to description, deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing, using increasingly specious excuses for one’s guesswork. The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it: (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy. (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method). It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals. Otherwise, like theology, it cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. That is what the evidence shows us. People ask me every single day what philosophy to read and I tell them ‘none of it’ other than perhaps the bookends of Aristotle and Nietzsche. The rest is all measurement, science, economics, Law, and history. There are no crimes equal to those of abraham, saul, and mohammed in the ancient world, and marx, freud, boas, in the 19th, and adorno, derrida and foucault in the 20th. We can complain about Augustine and Aquinas as apologists, but by them the damage was done. It is very hard to criticize archimedes, democritus, aristotle, epicurus, zeno in the ancient world, and bacon, newton, hobbes, lock, smith, hume in the modern, or poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, pareto, spencer, nietzsche and many others in the 19th, and einstein, watson-crick, and the many others in the 20th. Precision of our knowledge increases thereby justifying the pack, offset by counter-revolutions in denial, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism expanding the herd. And the war between neolithic feminine dysgenic herd strategy of the levant, and the bronze age masculine eugenic pack strategy of indo europeans. Truth is undesirable to the many.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142813 Timestamp) CONVERTING PHILOSOPHY INTO SCIENCE (worth repeating) Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing (imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical, by the use of: 1) operational language, 2) the full accounting of costs, and 3) declaring the method of decidability in the choice of preferences and goods as those of: … (a) the feminine equalitarian herd (dysgenic), or … (b) the masculine hierarchical pack (merit). However, if you do that you will end up with the natural law by selecting 3b, and a network of excuses and lies by selecting 3a. You can’t get out of it.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547138370 Timestamp) THE ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OVER METAPHYSICS —“Anytime you utter the word “emergent phenomenon”, you automatically need another science. In order to count as such, a science needs to satisfy what constraints?”— Help me understand this because there is no limit that I can imagine to the scale of a neural (bayesian) network, and no limit to the cognitive ability of a hierarchical and recursive network – other than inputs and outputs. The limits we have today are mechanical – we have built the wrong kind of computers. Even such, at great heat-cost, we are able to replicate those networks. So for ‘speech’ to emerge just like for the touch ui to emerge we require hardware (biological ware). So somehow (random selection, intentional manipulation) the real-world interface determines what can be ‘identified, predicted, and judged’ by that recursive, hierarchical, network. —“real”– As far as I know real = existential = persistent = observable = observable directly, by instrumentation, or by deduction from deduction using instrumentation, where that instrumentation can be either physical(external) or logical (internal). As far as I know ‘real’ in the colloquial, refers to ACTIONABLE. As far as I know the only open question is an empty verbalism: experiences are constructed from a combination of perception with memories of perceptions, limited by the grammar of conception, which is brain structure, which appears to be little more than the neurological homunculus – which the more I understand, the less ‘human’ I feel. So do experience (concepts, etc) exist, or do they have the potential be experienced, and do they persist if and only if some number of us share the potential to experience them? Once we operationalize these questions they turn out to be quite simple. Do unicorns exist? Well, No. Do does the word unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) of that word. So it we have knowledge of it. That knowledge persists in some distributed and fragmentary form. But it only exists as POTENTIAL. Whereas that which we claim exists already does so. Does that idea of a unicorn exist? Well, a lot of us have memory (knowledge) that can be accessed by that word, and using that index (word) we can recall some combination of fragmentary images of a unicorn (mine are the scenes in Blade Runner and after that, Legend of all things). So in Does the referent exist? Well, No. Does the index of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Does knowledge of the referent exist? Well, Yes. Yet again, we see, that a series stated in operational language solves the problem of the sophism of reductive questions. Unicorns don’t exist. An index (word) appears to have little or no direct sensation of itself. An index evokes a network of fragments, that recursively reflect additional fragments, and so on until we have exhausted our memories. the cortex (brain) is a continuous prediction system using fragments , and we can apply that prediction system to the real, the linguistic, and the imagined. What we call mind, probably an consequence of either cooperation, communication or language, or the sequence in total, consists largely in the direction of that forecasting (attention) and recursion (concentration). Is knowing this the same as experience? well no. Knowing this is however, defensive: eliminating the errors, bises, and deceits, that we and others engage in, with ourselves and others. WHAT ABOUT “NEED” – HUMAN DEMAND FOR COMFORTING FALSEHOODS Demand for Falsehoods today are driven by signal pressure and alienation pressure. In the past they were driven by signal pressure, competitive pressure, alienation pressure, and suffering pressure. We cannot fix signal pressure since it is necessary for selection, but we can fix mindfulness. We can’t fix alienation pressure but we can improve mindfulness and the civic society to reduce it. We can limit competitive pressure through the civic society and political ethnocentrism. And we can dramatically (and have) eliminated suffering pressure through mindfulness and medicine. Yes, the truth is that comforting lies (sophistry pseudoscience, the occult and denial), cults and groups, and sedation by alcohol, an drugs are CHEAP and DISORGANIZED means of providing mindfulness in the face of signal, alienation, competitive, and suffering pressures. However, we can likewise take and ORGANIZED and EXPENSIVE means of serving those market demands by non false and healthy and productive means. But like all contemporary problems (a) the collection of rent-seekers that will be displaced by the efforts to produce that order will fight desperately against these reforms (improvements) just as they will the legal and financial, because rent seeking that leaves people subject to pressures but gives them false hope is the most profitable industry of all. (b) not enough of us (yet) have taken up arms to alter that circumstance. NO MORE LIES
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547132816 Timestamp) YES, METAPHYSICS HAS BEEN OVERVALUED FOR 2500 YEARS (very ,very, important concept) —“The athenian tradition did not account for costs. (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today” (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests.” — CD Adam Voight asks a profound question: —“Does this mean that doing metaphysics has been overvalued for 2500 years?”— Adam Voight Yes, (which is why I piss on the subject all the time) it’s just a means of trying to find a reason not to account for costs. Which I think i’ve tried to state repeatedly, is that the universe operates on least cost principles because it has no choice. Humans do also because they have no choice. We are more complicated than the universe because we have memory, can use that memory to predict, and therefore select delayed actions or early actions an capture that difference in calories as reward. Measurement(math), Science (measurement), engineering (measurement), accounting/finance (measurement), economics(measurement), and Law (measurement) all account for costs. Philosophy and theology and the Occult do not account for costs. IMO Popper and Kuhn did not account for costs. Hayek half-succeeded and half failed, in that law is the only ‘science’ and that all else is merely some fewer number of dimensions we consider under the law. Science and philosophy and religion evolved out of law, with economics and physics the only two to account for costs, and keynesian economics an attempt like philosophy and religion to NOT account for costs. So here is the simple psychology of it: Those of us and our disciplines who account for costs. Those of us and our disciplines who avoid accounting for costs. The issue: you can rally people politically very easily by not accounting for costs. That is the secret to religion and philosophy versus science and law. Hence my work at ‘fixing’ the law such that it is a cult in and of itself, that is extremely intolerant of not accounting for costs.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547131377 Timestamp) –“PHILOSOPHY MUST BE DRAGGED OUT OF THE IVORY TOWER AND INTO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS”– Um. I don’t think so. Unless it has a dramatic reformation. via negativa, measurement, science, economics, and law, versus via positiva, philosophy, theology, occult, daydreaming. While I find no difference between theorizing and philosophizing that is because I do not engage in empty verbalisms or sophisms, pseudosciences, nor the magic of ignoring costs. Philosophy can be laundered such that philosophizing(imaginary and verbal) and theorizing (existential and actionable) are essentially identical by the use of operational language, the full accounting of costs, and a preface of the choice of goods as those of the equalitarian herd, or the hierarchical pack. But as practiced, and as the demotion of the discipline to a peer to theology has evidenced, measuring, theorizing, philosophizing, and theologizing are simply analogous to description, deduction, induction, abduction, and guessing, using increasingly specious excuses for one’s guesswork. The athenian tradition did not account for costs. There are two principle reasons for it: (1) the peerage was small and wealthy with common interests – and costs were as rude then as today (2) discussion of costs immediately changes from ideals to reals thereby self selecting into class interests (3) mathematical idealism influenced greco-roman thought so heavily, giving such sophism an unearned legitimacy. (4) historically religion spoke in these ideal terms, philosophy an improvement upon them, and empiricism an improvement upon philosophy, and science an improvement upon empiricism, just as ‘Testimonialism’ is an improvement upon science. (empiricism vs science distinguished by the 20th’s implementation of operational language, and testimonialism by the completion of the scientific method). It is time for philosophy to either abandon idealism, sophism, and the ignorance of costs, or to be further demoted into the theology of ideals. Otherwise, like theology, it cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. That is what the evidence shows us. People ask me every single day what philosophy to read and I tell them ‘none of it’ other than perhaps the bookends of Aristotle and Nietzsche. The rest is all measurement, science, economics, Law, and history. There are no crimes equal to those of abraham, saul, and mohammed in the ancient world, and marx, freud, boas, in the 19th, and adorno, derrida and foucault in the 20th. We can complain about Augustine and Aquinas as apologists, but by them the damage was done. It is very hard to criticize archimedes, democritus, aristotle, epicurus, zeno in the ancient world, and bacon, newton, hobbes, lock, smith, hume in the modern, or poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, pareto, spencer, nietzsche and many others in the 19th, and einstein, watson-crick, and the many others in the 20th. Precision of our knowledge increases thereby justifying the pack, offset by counter-revolutions in denial, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism expanding the herd. And the war between neolithic feminine dysgenic herd strategy of the levant, and the bronze age masculine eugenic pack strategy of indo europeans. Truth is undesirable to the many.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547246518 Timestamp) SO WHAT DOES GA BRING TO DERRIDA’S TABLE? All I see is a series of publications using hand waving as an attempt to provide a pseudoscientific defense of Derrida, in that ‘well’ everything evolved from language therefore we can evolve anything with language. In other words, postmodernism. GA tells us nothing that we don’t already know. So, what is it that GA brings to the table? What can we deduce from it? What application can we put it to? What purpose does this theory solve? I understand language as consisting of continuous recursive production of transactional measurements and linguistic competition for demonstrated results as improving measurements (truth) and biasing measurements (frauds and deceits). Whether a cliff or a climb is irrelevant. The central problem is one of computational costs in that production versus time and energy costs of that production. In other words, language tends to be pragmatically adjusted for precision over time, given the context. So what? That means we can tell truth and lie. It means that competitive ability highly reflects linguistic precision. It means that competitive ability provides competitive advantage. Because otherwise physical marginal indifference provides too little competitive advantage. So what does postmodern literary drivel bring to an otherwise well understood table? What I hear is that ‘its a useful means of manipulating people by deceit.’ People lacking knowledge, power, achievement, and capital like the priests of the middle east attempting to destroy the empire with christianity judaism and islam. Lies are a competitive strategy. The entire abrahamic artifice is based upon the competitive utility of lying.