http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333.summary?rss=1Small variations, small number of axis, complex resulting behavior.
Life is cool
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-17 12:13:00 UTC
Theme: Science
-
variations, small number of axis, complex resulting behavior. Life is cool
-
end of anti scientific IQ denialism approaches. Just like all other links real d
http://www.unz.com/isteve/estimating-iq-with-brain-scans/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=estimating-iq-with-brain-scansThe end of anti scientific IQ denialism approaches.
Just like all other links real denialism.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-14 15:24:00 UTC
-
“Bacon, I suggest, was not a scientist but a prophet. … He had the vision of a n
–“Bacon, I suggest, was not a scientist but a prophet. … He had the vision of a new age, of an industrial age which would also be an age of science and of technology. …Thus the new religion of science held a new promise of heaven on earth – of a better world which with the help of new knowledge, men would create for themselves. Knowledge is power, Bacon said, and this idea, this dangerous idea, of man’s master over nature – of men like gods – has been one of the most influential of the ideas through which the religion of science has transformed our world. (Myth of the Framework, p. 85-86)”–
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-12 06:33:00 UTC
-
A Problem of Analogistic Language (Borrowed Terms) —“it’s impossible to purge
A Problem of Analogistic Language (Borrowed Terms)
—“it’s impossible to purge our minds of prejudice. Only after we have made a scientific advance can we then, retroactively, tell that we held onto a prejudice (such as the Earth not moving) that was hindering our progress.”—Michael Phillip
MEANINGS
(a) Prejudice (in the legal sense of the term) as in ‘with prejudice’ is meant to convey ‘punishment’ or ‘teaching of a lesson’. (b)Pre-judgement is necessary for the defeat of time – particularly when the cost of the failure of one’s assumptions is small. (c) Cognitive Bias is to be circumvented at all times. (d) Moral Bias is a reflection of our reproductive strategies, and only a problem when we claim it is a universal truth or good, rather than an expression of our genetic demand.
To avoid this problem I use Prejudice, Pre-judgement, Cognitive Bias, Moral Bias, as discreet terms and do not conflate them by the use of a familiar term (even if colloquially accepted).
INDIVIDUAL AND INTERPERSONAL, CLASS AND POLITICAL
In my experience, and the empirical data supports this, it is illogical to use prejudice on an individual basis, and illogical not to use prejudice in a political context. The reason being that while we cannot judge an individual by the properties of a class, we can judge the class by the demonstrated properties of its individuals. In fact, it is illogical to judge a class other than by the demonstrated properties of individuals.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-12 03:52:00 UTC
-
LIE BY ANALOGY One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to
LIE BY ANALOGY
One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to lie using operational language. That is why science requires operational definitions. Whenever someone makes a statement about ‘law’ and rule of law, it is helpful to ascertain whether the person is engaged in deceit, by questioning whether he is talking about law, contractual provision, command, or permission.
Humans evolved cooperation from non-cooperation because it was an unequalled multiplier in the production of calories, and concentration of calories in expensive offspring. But as soon as one develops cooperation one invites free riding (parasitism). The prevention of free riding is necessary for the preservation of cooperation – otherwise cooperation is irrational and counter-productive. Without the prevention of free riding, and without aggressive punishment of free riders – from the lazy family member to the aggressive alpha, to the predatory competitor – people cease to cooperate, and must cease to cooperate. And productivity declines accordingly. And trust declines accordingly. And economic velocity declines accordingly. And violence theft, fraud, free riding, and rent seeking and corruption and conspiracy – including political conspiracy at scale, and bureaucratic conspiracy of common malincentives expand to the point of equilibrium.
We either possess rule of law: constraint, without exception, or discretion, or conversely, independence from discretion in matters of involuntary transfer – or we do not.
Rule of law is not a mater of opinion. It is either true or not true.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:20:00 UTC
-
Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection
[F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.
Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.
Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)
Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).
Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:
Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.
CLOSING
So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.
Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.
So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.
And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark
Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.
-
Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman and Their Anti-Science Economics
I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. The human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders built up under the era of plenty.
You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.
Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.
I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.
Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman and Their Anti-Science Economics
I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. The human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders built up under the era of plenty.
You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.
Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.
I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.
Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
DELONG AND PAUL KRUGMAN AND THEIR ANTI-EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS RE: Brad, I would cou
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03BRAD DELONG AND PAUL KRUGMAN AND THEIR ANTI-EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS
RE: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03
Brad,
I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. That human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.
What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders build up under the era of plenty.
You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.
Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.
I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.
Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-05 14:23:00 UTC
-
PINKER’S CRITICISM OF GROUP/MULTI-LEVEL SELECTION First, both of them are making
PINKER’S CRITICISM OF GROUP/MULTI-LEVEL SELECTION
First, both of them are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.
Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.
Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)
Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).
Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:
Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.
CLOSING
So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.
Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.
So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.
And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.
Source date (UTC): 2015-04-04 02:14:00 UTC