I was browsing through some links based on Holist's weird assertions concerning personal identity, and I've come to notice something interesting. We have, as a species, had 12,000 years of technology, with almost all of it happening from 1500 AD forward (Hell, most of it from 1985 forward)...But the study of humans themselves is still at the level of alchemy (vs chemistry).
Sociology is a little better off: There's money to be made by understanding how large groups of people will behave. But as far as the study of the behavior of individual people, the best we've managed is to hammer them flat with pharmaceuticals when they can't stay in line.
There seems to have been some interesting work done by Timothy Leary (as endlessly harped on by RAW) before he went bonkers, most of which was based on Earlier work done by Freud. Leary essentially removed Freud's weirdness concerning his mom, and made the information useful. That information is now extensively used by marketing and government agencies, though they never reference it (not that they reference anything), but it isn't taught in high school, etc...The best I ever go in a psych class was a history of failed ideas.
Now, I am more than willing to be corrected on this idea that psychology is basically stalled in its infant stages...Again, I am not an expert. If anyone with a proper education or just an insight into the subject has any comments, I'd be glad to hear them.
I agree with you. The problem, of course, is hammering people into groups to which you can easily market is way more profitable and comfortable than any sort of true encouragement of functioning diversity.
Yes, there's not many quality information out there, and what is there is not taught in schools.
And indeed it's mostly used by marketing people.
There's "critical thinking" which is not taught in schools, what's that to do with psychology? Well it's obvious once you realize it's basically the opposite of advertising or marketing. Fravia+ of Searchlores was a big proponent for teaching this.
There's "bias", "influence", "fallacies" which are all not taught in schools. Stuff that's written about in Taleb's Fooled by Randomness or Robert Cialdini's On Influence.
The latter one is based on real solid psychological research.
Showing the kind of human behavioural quirks that if you read about 90% of people falling for some trick, you'll think "That's stupid, I would never fall for that" and then the book mentions "They did a follow-up to this experiment where they first interviewed the subjects whether they thought they'd fall for this trick. It turns out that 70% of the people that say they wouldn't fall for this trick, in fact do fall for it when encountering it in a (set up) real life situation." (I fudged the percentages a bit but they were pretty high) -- real sobering realization, that :lol:
Sociology isn't about hammering people into groups, nor is it about profit. It's about studying how human-created social systems work.
To address Roger's post:
You are completely right! One of the reasons, IMO, is that alchemy is to chemistry what psychology is to neuroscience; we have previously lacked the tools to really understand human behavior, and worse, we have previously relied on a superstitious sort of thinking about the mind as being somehow separate from and in control of the body, when in fact it's an extremely complex part of the body. I am not saying that psychology isn't a valid or important field of study; but it is a subjective field of study. But just as alchemy gradually became less superstitious and more objective and was gradually refined into chemistry, new tools (very, very new tools) for studying the mental biology of humans are making it possible, a little at a time, to understand more about our brains and our emotions. Behavioral neurophysics will start to explain the human mind on a much deeper and more complex level, and it is my prediction that in time, neurophysics and psychology will merge, and a few hundred years from now the only people who study old-fashioned psychology will be regarded much as phrenologists and wanna-be wizards are today.
I do pretty much agree, though there has been some pretty awesome progress in the last 70-100 years, but not usually by people who get much celebrity status (read as: Freud is the best and worst thing to happen to psychology). In cognitive psychology there is quite a lot of more "concrete" science (if that makes sense) going on.
I think the main hurdle is the absurd level of complexity of brains. Although it is sometimes easier to model psychological phenomena than say physical or chemical, they must necessarily be more complex. I think there are hell of a lot more variables that you have to consider with a psychological experiment, not only that but a huge part of human behaviour is socially based, which makes it even easier to fall into kind of woolly science, as it is basically impossible to test that kind of thing in a lab.
Basically, yeah it's still fledgling, but I think a lot is because the phenomena it is attempting to study are (in my opinion) even more complex than the other sciences it is built on.
Just had a thought while I was writing this also, culture are environment affect cognition, so it could be that even the most basic foundations can/will change over time. Which is really incredibly unhelpful :) There was an article I skimmed recently about Facebook use and Dunbar's number (which is the upper limit on the size of a primate social group, correlated with neocortex size, and 150 in humans at the time it was written (70's I believe)). Basically what I gleaned from it (and I admit, I wasn't looking at it as critically as I should have) was that well, you know those people who have 1000+ "friends" on Facebook, and you just think, there is no way they can possibly be actually friends with 1000+ people? Well, you can't, but there was a positive correlation between No. Facebook "friends", the size of an area of the brain (hopefully) related to keeping track of social groups (unsurprising), and the size of their actual social group (somewhat surprising), and that those individuals with extremely high numbers of Facebook "friends" also had social groups larger than predicted by Dunbar (more surprising).
Anyway, I'm sure most of you can see the flaws in that experiment straight off, just think it's interesting, the idea that brain function is modulated by technology and culture, and the implications that has for people trying to study the brain (how much can we rely on past evidence, what kinds of things are modulated by culture that we need to watch out for, what kind of time frame can those changes occur within, what constants are there if any? There probably are constants, btw)
Yup, think that's all I've got for now,
xx
edd
Yup. That's about the long and short of it. Psychology is pretty much a pseudoscience that works but with very little knowledge or explanation of the underlying mechanisms. Like when there were 4 elements instead of all the proper ones. Everything still worked back then but there was no prediction or theoretical aspect. Like with modern psychology - we know if we poke him with a stick that 'x' will happen but no one has the slightest inkling of what happens when we poke him with a carrot until we try it out.
Psychology is essentially a programming discipline but with little or no attempt at a semantic language with which to interface with the hardware. So they're dealing with a great big complicated computer by standing around taking notes whenever something comes out the printer. It's black box. You might as well have magical water memory or tiny little elves inside there - psychology would work as well as it does either way.
Psychopharmacology is sort of hit-or-miss. The problem isn't that psychology doesn't really know what it's doing (I mean, it's not perfect but it does at least try to approach the problems using a scientific method) but that when you add the human factor--the free will factor, you're pretty much reducing your double-blind approach to a crapshoot.
So much of psychology breaks down to 101: Classical Conditioning. As adults, we have to make the personal choice to recognize which things in our lives are bells ringing and making us salivate, then come running for food, but also to make the cognitive choice to continue to refuse to come running despite feeling hungry and the discomfort of breaking the habit and to keep refusing, consistently until the urge subsides. Taking a substance to reduce the urge can help if you're at that level of cognitive determination but will actually serve to make the habit more ingrained if you take the substance and continue the behavior in spite of the ↓urge/reward.
Dr. Zimbardo has some interesting research going on lately; The Heroic Imagination Project aims to take all of his previous work (famously the Stanford Prison Experiments) in the opposite direction. Specifically, we already know what factors in situations can facilitate the worst in people, so his aim is to see what kind of situational factors can be employed to bring out the best in people, if there are any such things.
Social Psychology (distinct from sociology in that it focuses on addressing interpersonal group dynamics rather than society as a whole) is a much more strongly empirical field than most of the humanities.
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 05:29:20 PM
Dr. Zimbardo has some interesting research going on lately; The Heroic Imagination Project aims to take all of his previous work (famously the Stanford Prison Experiments) in the opposite direction. Specifically, we already know what factors in situations can facilitate the worst in people, so his aim is to see what kind of situational factors can be employed to bring out the best in people, if there are any such things.
Social Psychology (distinct from sociology in that it focuses on addressing interpersonal group dynamics rather than society as a whole) is a much more strongly empirical field than most of the humanities.
Okay.
Like I said, the study of groups has some support. But I maintain that you have to study both the group and the individual to understand either, and we're not really doing that.
I don't quite agree that we have to get both to get either. You can understand something about carburetors without understanding metallurgy. You can know driving without understanding carburetors at all. Knowledge comes in parts, and the mind is too complex to understand all at once, and groups of minds are that much worse. The best we can do is watch people and ourselves, then draw conclusions about human nature, the mind, and society. Once we know enough to start patching together a whole understanding of the situation, we'll try.
I HAD A POST AND IT GOT FUCKING EATEN.
Back button, forward didn't work.
ARRRRRGH. :argh!:
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 05:49:05 PM
I don't quite agree that we have to get both to get either. You can understand something about carburetors without understanding metallurgy. You can know driving without understanding carburetors at all. Knowledge comes in parts, and the mind is too complex to understand all at once, and groups of minds are that much worse. The best we can do is watch people and ourselves, then draw conclusions about human nature, the mind, and society. Once we know enough to start patching together a whole understanding of the situation, we'll try.
Humans are pack-oriented creatures. You can't really understand them without understanding the pack structure in which they live.
That's a somewhat misleading label though. Dogs are also pack oriented, but they don't have huge portions of their brains dedicated to the evolved necessity of using words to justify their ideas and actions to the rest of the pack to ensure selective fitness.
We are similar to pack animals, but we're more evolved around keeping the pack from tearing us to shreds, as opposed to serving the pack above ourselves. We're social, but we're unlike other pack animals in some key respects.
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 06:06:31 PM
That's a somewhat misleading label though. Dogs are also pack oriented, but they don't have huge portions of their brains dedicated to the evolved necessity of using words to justify their ideas and actions to the rest of the pack to ensure selective fitness.
We are similar to pack animals, but we're more evolved around keeping the pack from tearing us to shreds, as opposed to serving the pack above ourselves. We're social, but we're unlike other pack animals in some key respects.
What I meant was you have to understand OUR pack structure, because yes, it is different.
I don't know of any research into human society as it compares to other social creatures' pack structures. You have a point though, I'd love to read about any there may be.
I suspect that the key to human packs is in the differences that make a difference: language, culture, our unique cognitive powers (counterfactual reasoning, induction, etc) that cause our pack dynamics (good word for it, I think) to be different from other pack types.
Researchers are totally starting to study how people really work. It's just a relatively new field of study because it involved relatively new technology like magnetic imaging.
Quote from: Nigel on January 16, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
Researchers are totally starting to study how people really work. It's just a relatively new field of study because it involved relatively new technology like magnetic imaging.
I think this is the right approach: Learn the mechanics behind the thinking, THEN study the thinking itself.
I'm not sure if that really is the way to go. Imagine trying to learn C# or PHP by watching chips under a microscope. We're trying to reverse engineer the most complex operating system ever written. It's orders of magnitude more complex than windows. We need an interface. Some way of capturing the data streaming down the ports. Decrypting the packets of information. We need live brains, in jars with wires sticking out of them. Nothing else will cut it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 16, 2012, 07:16:10 PM
I'm not sure if that really is the way to go. Imagine trying to learn C# or PHP by watching chips under a microscope. We're trying to reverse engineer the most complex operating system ever written. It's orders of magnitude more complex than windows. We need an interface. Some way of capturing the data streaming down the ports. Decrypting the packets of information. We need live brains, in jars with wires sticking out of them. Nothing else will cut it.
That's why we have MAD SCIENTISTS, P3nt. The regular kind will have to muddle along with passive sensors.
All they'll ever see is the neurological equivalent of transistors opening and shutting :lulz:
Useful if they develop the capability to repair damaged stuff or even upgrade bits with more capacity, better bandwidth, etc but it's the app store where the real money is going to be.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 16, 2012, 07:21:17 PM
All they'll ever see is the neurological equivalent of transistors opening and shutting :lulz:
Useful if they develop the capability to repair damaged stuff or even upgrade bits with more capacity, better bandwidth, etc but it's the app store where the real money is going to be.
Hardware first. Software second...Because the latter can only operate within the constraints of the former.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 16, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
Researchers are totally starting to study how people really work. It's just a relatively new field of study because it involved relatively new technology like magnetic imaging.
I think this is the right approach: Learn the mechanics behind the thinking, THEN study the thinking itself.
It's both, really. They have to go together or the whole thing doesn't work. So you have neurophysicists doing the research and working with psychologists to understand the results. Psychologists are increasingly looking to neuroscience to help them understand behavior, and how to treat their clients.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 16, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
Researchers are totally starting to study how people really work. It's just a relatively new field of study because it involved relatively new technology like magnetic imaging.
I think this is the right approach: Learn the mechanics behind the thinking, THEN study the thinking itself.
One of the problems is that we have to kill all these darling ideas about how the human brain works along the way. All these cherished notions are deeply ingrained in study of mind. All these classical terms like" consciousness" are pretty much meaningless in the actual physical framework. Hanging onto most of psychology as it stands is hindering progress, because it is metaphor rather than pure description of physical reality. Just like the quantum world doesn't make sense when we imagine atoms and other "particles" as billiard balls bouncing around.
There is no "brain software". It's a pure hardware system with software-like behaviors because it changes as it goes. The metaphor is unfitting.
I think the real interesting way to go would be to research from behavioral and neuroscience approaches, and try to meet in the middle, because the real mysteries are how the small stuff translates into big stuff (micro/macro, complexity etc)
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 07:37:33 PM
There is no "brain software". It's a pure hardware system with software-like behaviors because it changes as it goes. The metaphor is unfitting.
I think the real interesting way to go would be to research from behavioral and neuroscience approaches, and try to meet in the middle, because the real mysteries are how the small stuff translates into big stuff (micro/macro, complexity etc)
No offence intended but you're wrong. Most of the personality is "software" in the sense that it's an emergent property of the hardware. A level of abstract that a purely physical description cannot adequately convey.
Saying that the potentiation of each neurotransmitter in the brain is the software is a big mistake. It's an abuse of a metaphor that was shaky to begin with. Brains are un-computerlike. They do not work on algorithms in the same sense. It is true that there are algorithms for neuronal behavior but they are approximations of biological behavior. They are not the rules that create brains, but a description.
Computers are mechanistic, so are brains. Computers take data from hardware into "working memory" and perform operations on it. That is what software is. Brains are the working memory. They do not have hard drives or working memory. Brains are therefore more circuit-like than computer like. Circuits don't have programs, they embody them.
If my brain were simple enough to understand, I wouldn't be smart enough to do it.
I don't know how frequently this happens, but one thing that I learned in getting my degree is that the field is largely bullshit. The problem is that there's so much we don't know that literally any idea about the brain is entertained, if only for a lark. I took a class on the psychology of good and evil. It was entirely meaningless.
Studies are also compartmentalized to understand one aspect at a time. The brain doesn't work like that, too many factors influence every little thing to isolate one. So while I don't think the field is a pseudoscience, I think it's a limited science. A lot of studies done in the field are legitimate, well thought out, and cleverly done. And we've learned a fuck ton from them, because it's a very young field.
So we have an entire field dedicated to the study of the mind, but the mind is such a massive topic that it gets broken up into every ridiculous subfield you can think of. There's a fucking whole branch dedicated to getting productivity out of office drones by influencing their environment.
ETA sp
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
If my brian were simple enough to understand, I wouldn't be smart enough to do it.
No physical phenomenon is beyond comprehension. We simply lack the accumulated knowledge.
Thing is, people in the middle ages were smarter than you or I. They had to be. Yet they'd be utterly incapable of understanding how computer works, for example, because they lack the accumulated knowledge that you and I have access to.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 03:29:12 PM
I was browsing through some links based on Holist's weird assertions concerning personal identity, and I've come to notice something interesting. We have, as a species, had 12,000 years of technology, with almost all of it happening from 1500 AD forward (Hell, most of it from 1985 forward)...But the study of humans themselves is still at the level of alchemy (vs chemistry).
Sociology is a little better off: There's money to be made by understanding how large groups of people will behave. But as far as the study of the behavior of individual people, the best we've managed is to hammer them flat with pharmaceuticals when they can't stay in line.
There seems to have been some interesting work done by Timothy Leary (as endlessly harped on by RAW) before he went bonkers, most of which was based on Earlier work done by Freud. Leary essentially removed Freud's weirdness concerning his mom, and made the information useful. That information is now extensively used by marketing and government agencies, though they never reference it (not that they reference anything), but it isn't taught in high school, etc...The best I ever go in a psych class was a history of failed ideas.
Now, I am more than willing to be corrected on this idea that psychology is basically stalled in its infant stages...Again, I am not an expert. If anyone with a proper education or just an insight into the subject has any comments, I'd be glad to hear them.
It is. IT still borrows heavily from philosophy, which had it's beginnings, and is still so obscure that you can lob near mystical shit a la Freud, and have it make SOME sense SOME of the time.
Not even the "Doctors" understand it. Some of them do (A jerk from Cranston, a Fitness nut, and a violent diabetic who had a keen grasp on the way of the world were the best.) Other doctoral folks who otherwise had every advantage in life handled it more like a gloss, with a similarly deep understanding. Like the diabetic said, it's more an inuitive grasp, a flavor, not a check list of symptoms.
It is also tricky to apply hard science too. You can do research, sure, but you're often dealing with topics and concepts that you have to be very clever to accurately test for. Understanding and applying the scientific method objectively is more than necessary for both testing and interpreting results. I've met few academics or researchers who can be properly objective. Most want to publish books, sell out seminars, or otherwise make money first.
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Saying that the potentiation of each neurotransmitter in the brain is the software is a big mistake. It's an abuse of a metaphor that was shaky to begin with. Brains are un-computerlike. They do not work on algorithms in the same sense. It is true that there are algorithms for neuronal behavior but they are approximations of biological behavior. They are not the rules that create brains, but a description.
Computers are mechanistic, so are brains. Computers take data from hardware into "working memory" and perform operations on it. That is what software is. Brains are the working memory. They do not have hard drives or working memory. Brains are therefore more circuit-like than computer like. Circuits don't have programs, they embody them.
No - that's what chips are. Software is an intangible abstract phenomenon created by the different states which the chips can be in. Neurons, on the other hand are much more complex than chips. A single transistor on a chip can be one of two states. A single neuron on a brain can be a fuckload of states but the principle is essentially the same - the consciousness is not the little blobby neurons, or the biochemical signals we can measure, shooting around in there, it's a meta property of the same.
If you look inside a brain you cannot see the actual thoughts, just like if you look inside a computer you can't see windows. They're both software.
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Saying that the potentiation of each neurotransmitter in the brain is the software is a big mistake. It's an abuse of a metaphor that was shaky to begin with. Brains are un-computerlike. They do not work on algorithms in the same sense. It is true that there are algorithms for neuronal behavior but they are approximations of biological behavior. They are not the rules that create brains, but a description.
Computers are mechanistic, so are brains. Computers take data from hardware into "working memory" and perform operations on it. That is what software is. Brains are the working memory. They do not have hard drives or working memory. Brains are therefore more circuit-like than computer like. Circuits don't have programs, they embody them.
Not to mention, it's not the neurotransmitter alone that matter. it's a whole slew of variables. Neurotransmitters come in many flavors. When they open protein gated channels on the dendrites across the synapse, it could be one of four ions that rushes in. These ions are of different strenghts in terms of generating an action potential, either excitatory or inhibatory. The axon may be sending either inhibitory or excitatory signals. It may be interacting with one other neuron, or more likely, dozens. It could be receiving excitatory ions from one part of the dendrite and inhibitory from another, all from different other neurons. When the charge reaches the hillock, if it tips the balance the neuron fires. We're talking ionic eletrotransport of signal that can be altered in a massive amount of ways within a multi-billion cell network. It's all "hardware", that is, it's all physical connections, but the connections and the /temperment/ of the connections are malleable.
There isn't really a good computer "hardware versus software metaphor" for neurology, because our computer systems have components that are either physical circuits or magnetic (yet easily erasable) storage. You could said that neuropathy is hardware with software like malleability, but that doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
If my brian were simple enough to understand, I wouldn't be smart enough to do it.
No physical phenomenon is beyond comprehension. We simply lack the accumulated knowledge.
Thing is, people in the middle ages were smarter than you or I. They had to be. Yet they'd be utterly incapable of understanding how computer works, for example, because they lack the accumulated knowledge that you and I have access to.
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so. As we accumulate knowledge we have to become smarter in order to apply that knowledge. Intelligence keeps increasing as time goes on. Whether or not we actually use it is a different matter.
That line was a bastardized take on Kant, I think, and the general argument is that we are too complex to understand given the tools currently available. I agree with this. We'll probably get it down at some point, but that point is so far off it's incredible, and that ceiling will likely continue to rise as we adapt to understand even more knowledge.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 08:40:17 PM
If my brian were simple enough to understand, I wouldn't be smart enough to do it.
No physical phenomenon is beyond comprehension. We simply lack the accumulated knowledge.
Thing is, people in the middle ages were smarter than you or I. They had to be. Yet they'd be utterly incapable of understanding how computer works, for example, because they lack the accumulated knowledge that you and I have access to.
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so. As we accumulate knowledge we have to become smarter in order to apply that knowledge. Intelligence keeps increasing as time goes on. Whether or not we actually use it is a different matter.
That line was a bastardized take on Kant, I think, and the general argument is that we are too complex to understand given the tools currently available. I agree with this. We'll probably get it down at some point, but that point is so far off it's incredible, and that ceiling will likely continue to rise as we adapt to understand even more knowledge.
I disagree. At this point and time in history, intelligence is not increasing. There is no selective survival or reproduction pressure for intelligence to increase beyond it's current average. If anything, intelligence is stabilizing. I do not have to be any smarter to understand the scientific problems of today than they did 100 years ago. I just have to know more. Memorization and recall is not exactly high intelligence.
In other words, Leonardo Da Vinci was not an order of magnitude less intelligent than Newton. The latter just had more accumulated knowledge.
Yeah I've only really ever heard of an upward trend in overall intelligence as time goes on. Memorization and recall aren't exactly high intelligence, but in order to apply accumulated knowledge, and given the wealth of knowledge that is being accumulated, higher intelligence is required.
You also can't argue trends based solely on outliers, as Da Vinci or Newton would be.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:12:55 PM
Yeah I've only really ever heard of an upward trend in overall intelligence as time goes on. Memorization and recall aren't exactly high intelligence, but in order to apply accumulated knowledge, and given the wealth of knowledge that is being accumulated, higher intelligence is required.
You also can't argue trends based solely on outliers, as Da Vinci or Newton would be.
Okay.
If you're posing that there is an increasing trend in intelligence (which, btw, we haven't yet defined for the purposes of this conversation), then I'd like to see evidence of such. Despite its faults, IQ is one of the few widely used quantitative measures of intelligence, and it seems to be stabilizing around 100-110 average.
Argh. I'm at work and can't keep up. I'll try to respond more fully to everything later.
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
I need a cite on that.
I also need a cite on the claim that intelligence is increasing, since that is a really strong claim and I cannot think of any selective mechanism strong enough with this size of a population to increase in such short a time as a couple centuries.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
But IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It measures perception and education.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so.
What do you define intelligence as?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:45:40 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
But IQ doesn't measure intelligence. It measures perception and education.
Agreed. I'm also not the one that brought it into the conversation as an argument for actual intelligence. Given the newness of the test, it's less than useless in talking about intelligence since the middle ages.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on January 16, 2012, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
I need a cite on that.
I also need a cite on the claim that intelligence is increasing, since that is a really strong claim and I cannot think of any selective mechanism strong enough with this size of a population to increase in such short a time as a couple centuries.
Google Flynn Effect for IQ. I really don't have any citations on the interbutts for the overall intelligence trend, I'm sorry. They would be in one of my psych books buried away in my basement if anywhere. It's just one of the things I picked up and, hey, I'd be more than willing to admit I'm mistaken if there's anything out there pointing otherwise.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so.
What do you define intelligence as?
Oof. Big question. I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc. I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
Agreed. I'm also not the one that brought it into the conversation as an argument for actual intelligence. Given the newness of the test, it's less than useless in talking about intelligence since the middle ages.
Less useful, I'd say.
I am using for my definition the entry in the M/W dictionary:
Quote1.ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed
In the middle ages, you had less time to think and learn than you have now. A reaction to a crop blight, for example, or "what to do when the next rampaging army's foraging teams show up" had a hell of a lot less available lead time than we enjoy today. Simply put, if you took a modern Western human being and plunked him down in the middle ages, he wouldn't make it to the weekend, and not because of societal issues.
Intelligence acts almost like a muscle. If you use it, you get better at it. If you live by "cookbook chemistry", where the solutions are all available and only need to be implimented, you will get dumber. So I don't think that the species has changed, I think changing conditions have taken the same genetic stock and garnered a different, dumber result.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so.
What do you define intelligence as?
Oof. Big question. I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc. I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.
Pattern recognition.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:56:20 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
Agreed. I'm also not the one that brought it into the conversation as an argument for actual intelligence. Given the newness of the test, it's less than useless in talking about intelligence since the middle ages.
Less useful, I'd say.
I am using for my definition the entry in the M/W dictionary:
Quote1.ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed
In the middle ages, you had less time to think and learn than you have now. A reaction to a crop blight, for example, or "what to do when the next rampaging army's foraging teams show up" had a hell of a lot less available lead time than we enjoy today. Simply put, if you took a modern Western human being and plunked him down in the middle ages, he wouldn't make it to the weekend, and not because of societal issues.
Intelligence acts almost like a muscle. If you use it, you get better at it. If you live by "cookbook chemistry", where the solutions are all available and only need to be implimented, you will get dumber. So I don't think that the species has changed, I think changing conditions have taken the same genetic stock and garnered a different, dumber result.
That's a neat definition. We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving. What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it? How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end? That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis. But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.
I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that. Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.
As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages. They'd probably get hit by a car.
However, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then. Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.
I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.
Pattern recognition.
Pattern recognition is an inadequate description of intelligence because it does not account for adaptation. Just noticing a pattern does not signify intelligence. Being able to decide whether the pattern is significant, what to do about it, to induce what it means for the future and deduce what it means about the past, with regard to how it may help or hinder you. That is a huge element to intelligence that mere pattern recognition does not include.
Quote from: navkat on January 16, 2012, 10:17:42 PM
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.
Pattern recognition.
Quote from: navkat on January 16, 2012, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so.
What do you define intelligence as?
Oof. Big question. I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc. I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.
Pattern recognition.
That's an oversimplification. It's probably a significant part of intelligence, and it plays into creativity, but pattern recognition is essentially law of fives, which is a reminder that if you rely entirely on pattern recognition you're likely to see links where they don't actually exist.
Pattern recognition alone would also lead to a conflation of correlation and causation, being that a pattern is present, but without any analysis it'd be a mistake.
There are different types of intelligence. All of them sprout from some form of pattern recognition, more or less.
I do NOT define intelligence as the ability to observe reality and adapt because that limits intelligence to those who are really good at managing everything from social interaction to addiction to fucking HORRORS and it disenfranchises those who are really good at math with Asperger's.
Intelligence has many manifestations. I'm articulate and well-written. I can comprehend complex messages from the things I read. I do math at roughly a 9th grade level and I'm a social fucking retard who puts my foot in my mouth daily and fails to recognize patterns in my love life over and over and fucking over again.
Kai is a brilliant mathematician and scientist. I don't dare challenge him on any matters pertaining to those areas. Cain has a library in his head and I've learned to take a seat a stfu in many instances where knowledge of history and politics are challenged. I have a friend who's a social genius...to the point where he can practically read minds. He can predict what people are going to say or do before they know themselves.
Specialized brands of pattern recognition.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:24:37 PM
Quote from: navkat on January 16, 2012, 10:17:42 PM
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 10:13:04 PM
I would define intelligence as the capacity to observe reality and adapt.
Pattern recognition.
Quote from: navkat on January 16, 2012, 10:09:09 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:54:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 09:46:28 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:01:34 PM
They were more practically adapted to survival, yeah, but smarter, I don't think so.
What do you define intelligence as?
Oof. Big question. I'm behind the idea that it's an amalgamation of critical thinking, analytical thinking, memory, reasoning, knowledge, application of knowledge, etc. I generally support multiple intelligences, in which case I could see us being dumber in many practical ways as time goes on but smarter in other ways.
Pattern recognition.
That's an oversimplification. It's probably a significant part of intelligence, and it plays into creativity, but pattern recognition is essentially law of fives, which is a reminder that if you rely entirely on pattern recognition you're likely to see links where they don't actually exist.
Pattern recognition alone would also lead to a conflation of correlation and causation, being that a pattern is present, but without any analysis it'd be a mistake.
Pattern
recognition, not pattern makey-upedness.
So pattern recognition would account for noticing a familiar situation. What about, uh, reacting or adapting to that situation? If you're about to get hit by a bus, can reference that the bus is about to strike you, but don't actually move out of the way, your definition would argue that such an action is an intelligent one.
When I say "observe reality and adjust", I'm being intentionally broad. It can be anything. When you observe that people who get hit by cars often don't come back from the ER, you adjust to that fact by avoiding cars and other large, fast objects to also avoid not coming back from the ER. When you observe a complex phenomenon, it's the same thing. It's just a different kind of observing reality and making up an appropriate adjustment.
EDIT: Damn EoC, took my getting hit by cars example! *shakes fist*
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on January 16, 2012, 09:00:37 PM
Quote from: Jasper on January 16, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
Saying that the potentiation of each neurotransmitter in the brain is the software is a big mistake. It's an abuse of a metaphor that was shaky to begin with. Brains are un-computerlike. They do not work on algorithms in the same sense. It is true that there are algorithms for neuronal behavior but they are approximations of biological behavior. They are not the rules that create brains, but a description.
Computers are mechanistic, so are brains. Computers take data from hardware into "working memory" and perform operations on it. That is what software is. Brains are the working memory. They do not have hard drives or working memory. Brains are therefore more circuit-like than computer like. Circuits don't have programs, they embody them.
Not to mention, it's not the neurotransmitter alone that matter. it's a whole slew of variables. Neurotransmitters come in many flavors. When they open protein gated channels on the dendrites across the synapse, it could be one of four ions that rushes in. These ions are of different strenghts in terms of generating an action potential, either excitatory or inhibatory. The axon may be sending either inhibitory or excitatory signals. It may be interacting with one other neuron, or more likely, dozens. It could be receiving excitatory ions from one part of the dendrite and inhibitory from another, all from different other neurons. When the charge reaches the hillock, if it tips the balance the neuron fires. We're talking ionic eletrotransport of signal that can be altered in a massive amount of ways within a multi-billion cell network. It's all "hardware", that is, it's all physical connections, but the connections and the /temperment/ of the connections are malleable.
There isn't really a good computer "hardware versus software metaphor" for neurology, because our computer systems have components that are either physical circuits or magnetic (yet easily erasable) storage. You could said that neuropathy is hardware with software like malleability, but that doesn't make any sense.
Thanks Kai. I walked away from my computer going UNNNNNNNNNG! but then I walked back to it and read this. :)
Also, Navkat, while it's nice to hear the endorsement, I am not a mathemetician.
:oops:
I'm sticking with the dictionary definition.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
That's a neat definition. We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving. What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it? How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end? That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis. But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.
I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that. Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.
Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence. I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages. They'd probably get hit by a car.
It's more likely that they'd go insane.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PMHowever, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then. Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.
Sure. But I wasn't even considering genetic load. I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker. They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 11:51:40 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
That's a neat definition. We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving. What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it? How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end? That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis. But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.
I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that. Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.
Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence. I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages. They'd probably get hit by a car.
It's more likely that they'd go insane.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PMHowever, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then. Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.
Sure. But I wasn't even considering genetic load. I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker. They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.
So, you're speaking in sense of exercise and childhood development rather than some sort of genetic change.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on January 16, 2012, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 11:51:40 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
That's a neat definition. We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving. What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it? How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end? That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis. But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.
I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that. Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.
Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence. I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages. They'd probably get hit by a car.
It's more likely that they'd go insane.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PMHowever, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then. Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.
Sure. But I wasn't even considering genetic load. I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker. They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.
So, you're speaking in sense of exercise and childhood development rather than some sort of genetic change.
Yep. I think it even goes beyond that. I think you can take an average adult and make him measurably smarter, simply by changing his environment and his behavior. I know I think better after an adulthood of studying higher math, and then troubleshooting complex industrial systems.
I'm pretty sure intelligence as described in the dictionary is to some degree a learned behavior. A human - probably - has a band of intelligence that goes from "couch potato" to "very intelligent", and where they fall on the scale is to some degree determined by what they DO with their brain.
That I agree with completely. It's even reflected in IQ tests, where there's an increase in a single individual's lifetime. If people exercise their brains, they get smarter. Intelligence is fluid.
Where I differ is that I don't think it was exercised more in previous times. People have always been people, and inclined to exist in the most convenient way possible. Where things are more convenient now in terms of survival, even something like our increased population has led to higher intelligence. Because we're regularly in contact with more people on a daily basis than any time in history, we're forced to think to adapt to changing social situations, which is a kind of intelligence.
The fact that we even have a choice to converse like we are now where previously there had been no such opportunity is another sign. While the majority today choose not to do this, the greater majority previously wouldn't even be able to, whether they wanted to or not.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 17, 2012, 12:12:06 AM
Where I differ is that I don't think it was exercised more in previous times. People have always been people, and inclined to exist in the most convenient way possible.
The difference is in how much convenience is possible.
If it's any help, the IQ test "intelligence" increasing if still cited by my lecturers (I can find a reference tomorrow). Think it's about 6 points every decade (maybe less).
Re: defining intelligence, dictionary works just fine I guess. IQ tests though are specifically related to "academic" intelligence, they were originally developed to test the effectiveness of teaching I believe. I think its a very vague term personally, I mean, the defining factor in someones intelligence could be something like the speed of synapse firing/ratios of neurotransmitter, which then allows faster cognitive function, and then it comes down to whether you measure intelligence as the thing causing those increased cognitive functions or the functions themselves.
That's not totally out of the blue either, some study on the correlation (positive) between running speed and intelligence, possibly to do with synaptic fire rate (could also be to do with loads of other factors mind), something else for me to dig up tomorrow :)
xx
edd
p.s. now stop distracting me from my essay on blindsight :wink:
I'm iffy on medieval humans not having as much accumulated knowledge. Certainly a lot less technical accumulated knowledge (as we understand the world "technical") but I don't see any reason to claim that their cultural knowledge base would be more shallow re: the things they come into contact with on a regular or semi-regular basis. They may not have been able to google whatever knowledge you don't have on hand at the moment, but as long as your environment is reasonably static (life altering inventions averaging much less than once per generation) you can get by with Tradition and whatever those monks have written down in their histories.
You could even argue that the modern environment of rapid requires more individual decision making because we don't yet have the traditions to deal with, say, cell phones. People are only now starting to get the "don't cell phone while operating cars" meme pounded into the collective cultural consciousness. I attribute the Greater Internet Fuckwad principle to our lack of tradition and culture about how to communicate and engage in discourse when everyone is pseudo-anonymous. I'm not a medieval scholar, but I expect that the relatively solid class system and constant communication with your neighbors made it easier to figure out what was appropriate to say and what was the appropriate way to say it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 17, 2012, 12:17:23 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 17, 2012, 12:12:06 AM
Where I differ is that I don't think it was exercised more in previous times. People have always been people, and inclined to exist in the most convenient way possible.
The difference is in how much convenience is possible.
We have lots of convenient appliances, convenient libraries, convenient education, etc., but throughout history there have always been people and social structures in place to make it as convenient as possible to not rock the status quo. I think the average medieval peasant spent the similar or even less time thinking about the relationship between themselves and their religion, their feudal lord, and their community as compared to 21st century humans.
I just finished listening to the audiobook version of Man's Search for Meaning by the late neurologist/psychologist, Viktor Frankel. Frankel spent some time in a concentration camp and the book describes, first his experiences there and then relates them to his theories. which became"Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy," Logotherapy. I haven't really had time to sit down and really explore the ideas but they look really interesting on the outset. Definitely third circuit stuff but also more fleshed out than Freud and less crazy than Leary.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 16, 2012, 11:51:40 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
That's a neat definition. We make immediate reactive deicisions on a daily basis, which are based on previous learned experiences in something even as simple as driving. What do you do when the semi driver doesn't see you in the lane when he changes into it? How do you act when that SUV didn't check its massive blind spot and is about to take out your front end? That can be a life or death situation as much as a pillaging army or blight, and one that we practice on a very regular basis. But I don't think that's a definitive answer to intelligence.
I'm gonna argue based on experience that driving decisions are made by habit, experience, and reflex, not by outright intelligence.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
I'm arguing that because we have such a wealth of accumulated knowledge that we need to apply on a regular basis, we have become more intelligent in order to adapt to that. Whether or not our hardware has changed, the average person needs to draw upon a greater amount of information and for that we've become more intelligent.
Established, accumulated knowledge doesn't necessarily imply intelligence. I'd argue the other way, stating that you don't need to use your brain as much if the knowledge is handed to you.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
As for dropping a westerner in the middle ages, do the same for someone in the middle ages. They'd probably get hit by a car.
It's more likely that they'd go insane.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 10:09:21 PMHowever, I definitely agree that it's easier to get by these days than it was back then. Lack of intelligence is protected to a greater degree than ever.
Sure. But I wasn't even considering genetic load. I'm arguing that people are less intelligent for the same reason that they're physically weaker. They don't need to use their muscles or their brains as much.
No. People are becoming more intelligent (in some ways) as their environments are becoming more complex.
I think this talk on Vimeo will be very illuminating to the topic (very good thread so far). Doug Rushkoff goes over how our society changed from Feudal to Mercantile to Internet dominated, and some ideas about what changes are coming/what to do about it:
Douglas Rushkoff: Branding Doesn't Work! So Now What? (http://vimeo.com/19230678)
http://bigthink.com/ideas/41973
The Two Systems of Cognitive Processes
In today's excerpt – thanks to the work of Daniel Kahneman and others, we now increasingly view our cognitive processes as being divided into two systems. System 1 produces the fast, intuitive reactions and instantaneous decisions that govern most of our lives. System 2 is the deliberate type of thinking involved in focus, deliberation, reasoning or analysis – such as calculating a complex math problem, exercising self-control, or performing a demanding physical task.
System 2 activities - cognitive, emotional, or physical - draw at least partly on a shared pool of mental energy. Studies consistently show that when the brain is occupied with one type of System 2 thinking, it interferes with any other type of System 2 thinking you need to perform at the same time. And performing one type of System 2 thinking makes us less able to perform a subsequent System 2 activity in the period immediately afterward – even if one is physical and the other is cognitive or emotional. Furthermore, when the mind is actively focused on a System 2 activity, it results in System 1 having greater influence over our behavior:
"It is now a well-established proposition that both self-control and cognitive effort are forms of mental work. Several psychological studies have shown that people who are simultaneously challenged by a demanding cognitive task and by a temptation are more likely to yield to the temptation. Imagine that you are asked to retain a list of seven digits for a minute or two. You are told that remembering the digits is your top priority. While your attention is focused on the digits, you are offered a choice between two desserts: a sinful chocolate cake and a virtuous fruit salad. The evidence suggests that you would be more likely to select the tempting chocolate cake when your mind is loaded with digits. System 1 has more influence on behavior when System 2 is busy, and it has a sweet tooth.
"People who are cognitively busy are also more likely to make selfish choices, use sexist language, and make superficial judgments in social situations. Memorizing and repeating digits loosens the hold of System 2 on behavior, but of course cognitive load is not the only cause of weakened self-control. A few drinks have the same effect, as does a sleepless night. The self-control of morning people is impaired at night; the reverse is true of night people. Too much concern about how well one is doing in a task sometimes disrupts performance by loading short-term memory with pointless anxious thoughts. The conclusion is straightforward: self-control requires attention and effort. Another way of saying this is that controlling thoughts and behaviors is one of the tasks that System 2 performs.
"A series of surprising experiments by the psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues has shown conclusively that all variants of voluntary effort - cognitive, emotional, or physical - draw at least partly on a shared pool of mental energy. Their experiments involve successive rather than simultaneous tasks.
"Baumeister's group has repeatedly found that an effort of will or self-control is tiring; if you have had to force yourself to do something, you are less willing or less able to exert self-control when the next challenge comes around. The phenomenon has been named ego depletion. In a typical demonstration, participants who are instructed to stifle their emotional reaction to an emotionally charged film will later perform poorly on a test of physical stamina - how long they can maintain a strong grip on a dynamometer in spite of increasing discomfort. The emotional effort in the first phase of the experiment reduces the ability to withstand the pain of sustained muscle contraction, and ego-depleted people therefore succumb more quickly to the urge to quit. In another experiment, people are first depleted by a task in which they eat virtuous foods such as radishes and celery while resisting the temptation to indulge in chocolate and rich cookies. Later, these people will give up earlier than normal when faced with a difficult cognitive task."
Quotes from ~
Author: Daniel Kahneman Title: Thinking Fast and Slow
Publisher: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
Date: Copyright 2011 by Daniel Kahneman
Pages: 41-42
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on January 16, 2012, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 16, 2012, 09:35:07 PM
The average IQ is 100, it's designed that way. When it's no longer 100, the test is changed to bring the norm back to 100. And that's done because the score has gone up in most parts of the world since the test came about.
I need a cite on that.
I also need a cite on the claim that intelligence is increasing, since that is a really strong claim and I cannot think of any selective mechanism strong enough with this size of a population to increase in such short a time as a couple centuries.
But isn't that the point? Given the timescale we're looking at, humans aren't significantly evolving, right?
(interesting subquestion for you, given just a slightly larger timescale, in what sense
have we been evolving?)
I'm not saying that intelligence is increasing btw, just that selective mechanisms might not be the thing to look at.
Say you get more intelligent by studying. Let's focus on math. 500 years ago there was already quite a bit of math to be knowledgable about, but there was no easily accessible education system to learn all about it. But now there is. A person can become quite the expert on math in just a few years of study.
That's not a selection mechanism, but indeed accumulated knowledge, distilled in such a way so that you can learn all the good parts without having to travel far and read unique manuscripts to get at it.
And that's just math. It also goes for many other areas. Isn't that some sense in which it could be said intelligence is increasing? Or maybe the potential for being well-learned is increasing?
Telarus, I remember another study with participants forced to sit in a room with biscuits. Those allowed to eat them were able to have a comfortable conversation with a rude individual, whereas those who coulnt eat them got snarky.