|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|fun with graphs||2||19:22, 31 July 2012|
|keleman||4||22:02, 25 July 2012|
|Reductionism... erm, redux!||2||14:58, 22 July 2012|
|Pathetic||3||22:19, 19 July 2012|
|Why do you make stuff up?||11||20:11, 18 July 2012|
|Dawkins and gender politics||2||17:29, 15 July 2012|
|Everybody, look here!||4||01:35, 14 July 2012|
|Foxnews 10 tips to spice up your sex life.||18||21:05, 13 July 2012|
|"better than"||3||21:00, 11 July 2012|
|Solipsism||1||16:40, 7 July 2012|
|2||02:35, 4 July 2012|
|You've probably read this already||0||22:21, 23 June 2012|
|Greece||3||22:54, 22 June 2012|
|I'm sure there were goats in Babylon||4||05:52, 20 June 2012|
|''Psychology Today''||4||16:18, 19 June 2012|
|PUI: Philosophizing Under the Influence||1||19:44, 18 June 2012|
|50 shades of Grey||13||14:07, 7 June 2012|
|Arty propaganda!||16||03:22, 4 June 2012|
|Book reviews||8||16:26, 3 June 2012|
|Just whining about being old||6||17:00, 31 May 2012|
And i'm never I using a phone to post here ever again....
Thanks for that reference. I'd run across one of his (her?) papers a few years back but have never been able to remember the name to follow up! His (or her) two earlier papers, cited in your article are the ones i wanted to read. mucho thankso.
No problem -- I didn't even know you were looking for it. Check out her earlier paper on "intuitive theism" for the role of teleology in the context of other cognitive mechanisms.
I didn't either, till i read your comment on that threat and said "oh my god, that's the author!" heh. Jesus you must read 24 hours a day. ;-)
Wait, I recall this term. but reading doesn't seem to come to mind. I am picturing glasses of liquid, and perhaps too many naked bodies, and bad british reruns. I must have the wrong term in mind. hummm "ga-ra-d sk-ol". hum
Obviously interesting work from the field of computational biology but I do think it'll attract some Gold Standard comments. For example:
|I do not think it is necessary to predict the final shape of a protein from its amino acid sequence. It is sufficient merely to encode all the rules amino acids follow and let the resulting protein form by running the model.|
Which is why comp-sci students need to learn more biology.
Wonder how far off we are from scaling up models like this for more complex organisms. The formula might be worked out by multiplying the estimates from the Singularitarians by the number of times they've failed to predict said advances.
So you really can't either recant your assertion or back it up? Asinine moron.
Seriously, go outside or something. Take a break for a while. If you're just going to troll me for not agreeing with you 100% about the "Yuddite" cult, I'm just going to delete any messages you post on this talk page from here on out.
So you are not going to either back up or recant your assertion?
Oh, please. You and the rest of the new anti-LW crew have spent almost all your time here not-so-subtly insinuating that there's some kind of "Yuddite" cabal around here. The obsessive fixation with LW almost makes me want to give my life savings to SIAI! Now where's my credit card?
Don't try to change the subject. You asserted that I made an specific claim. You should either back up your assertion or recant it.
The Cabal rises. and wants to make synthetic brains! or something.
I appreciate the attempt to fix the write-up, but the description of the context still sucks. :( It would be nice to have an article on Elevatorgate, and I have some ideas in that direction, but it will require quite a lot of time and effort, which I don't have. :( Another problem is that a lot of the source material probably got deleted in the National Geographic take-over of Science Blogs.
I just flicked it back so there wasn't nothing at all in the article on it. I do think it goes into rather excruciating detail for a bout of internet drama, though.
Ha, my dream Elevatorgate article would make the unfinished one on Comet Elenin look short. :) It's a divisive issue "in the community" and there's still chance to turn some people in the right direction with a good ol' exposition of the facts. A lot of the problem with it is that people are hearing only abbreviated versions that play on their prejudices. So, an article, or at least an Essay, is sorely needed.
Finally, an example of doing it right. Congratulations, Nebuchadnezzar.
Not if that's a BDSM metaphor...
Kidding. Do jokes like that offend you? Do you get unwanted attention and commentary for this particular preference of yours?
Sorry, it's just that everytime I think User:Nebuchadnezzar of RationalWiki, I think "neuroscience, writes great articles, BDSM"
Call it latent bigotry I've yet to eliminate.
Last edit: 18:48, 13 July 2012
and yes, it really is for real. really.
When did, frankly, scary amounts of passive aggressiveness become sexy?
When did pretending you watched someone take a shit become sexy? If my wife did that I'd say "You're fucking sick, woman. Get some fucking help."
There's also the Men's Health version if you haven't seen it yet (a follow-up to the analogous article charting Cosmo's lunacy). They're odd, very odd, in a very different way to Cosmo but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Is it supposed to be about sex or a chemistry experiment?
The men's articles have a bit of the pick up artist feel to them. "all women are a game. your job is to decipher the game". there's also the sense that everything is about the sex and just the sex, and not even the enjoyment of the sex. just getting to the sex.
"dip your willy into nutella". why??? dear god, why??? i don't want dick flavored nutella.
Maybe they think women are like dogs that don't want to take their medicine, so they cover the 'pill' in peanut butter to disguise it.
Men have to spread their seed as fast and as far as possible. No time for actually enjoying sex when there's a job to do.
"Pop your chap in a jar of Nutella, then present it to your lady. Be rewarded with a very enthusiastic blowjob." You might not be. Sounds a lot like when a cat drags in a dead rodent to present to its owner, expecting some kind of reward.
We had a teacher in high school who would pick up every piece of change and someone pulled the old "glue a penny to the floor" trick on him once. I guess Fox would consider that foreplay.
When boys picked on girls in the 1-5th grades, we were told it was "cause he likes you". I never believed that.
YOu all just liked picking on us, right?
Fairly sure it's because they're super reinforced to like 'boy things' -> girl things are taboo -> therefore being girly is icky -> make fun of girls.
But that just might be my inner feminist grumbling.
I was reading a post on anti-islam and/or anti theism, and the anti-islam (pro rational) guy had summarized and simplified Islam into "Islam is what is found in the Qu'ran, and that is what I was attacking. If you are Islamic, you believe this, and it's not scientific" or some such.
I'm truly bothered by the idea of re scripting religion, or really any ideology (conservatism via the CPs of the world, as example) then attacking that strawman. And the reason it bothers me is actually cause to me it seems like these people are getting their self-value from being "better" than others. "god, you are so stupid cause you believe in a god".
I fully get why we attack pseudo-science, or bad medicine, or even political lies. those deserve to be stricken from available options. But I don't get why anyone cares if an unkonwn woman (who can afford it and has no serious medical issues), buys a bracelet of magnets to make her mood feel better or reads tarot cards. why does it make these people feel bigger/better to point out other people's "stupidty".
Answered your own question: "...these people are getting their self-value from being "better" than others." Now, let's write some articles ripping on cranks!
As most of the major skeptical writers will say, the issue is that if someone buys a magnetic bracelet to feel better and then feels better, they'll assume there must be something to it. So when it comes to buying the magnetic bracelet to cure their kid of leukaemia there must be something to it, so it must be able to help.
I don't advocate attacking the indiviudal, though. It always has to be the idea. "This is why the bracelet doesn't work" not "this is why you're an irrational fool for buying it".
I get that. that's why I get this site, and enjoy it. I don't get the need to feel superior.
I read things like CP posts, here, and watch how many people take delight at how stupid, or ignorant, or insane the CPers are. They delight in pointing out the littlest of problems. and that's what I see on some of these pages on facebook. It's not about the ideas, it's about the *making fun* of the people who believe the ideas.
What do you think about death as a possible refutation of solipsism? Would it even count since you couldn't share it with anyone?
Want to help? Heard that you're a bit of an expert on this.
Not really -- from the looks of it you know more than I do. At least after writing the article.
All right, I added a section on Greece-baiting#The issue of monetary sovereignty.
Sir, this talk page is not an authorized free speech zone. Please remove all political paraphernalia from the site at once.
Pseudopsychology Today? Probably. You haven't even scratched the surface there, really. The problem is that PT has hundreds of blogs (many of which don't last more than a few months) with very little editorial oversight or quality control. This results in it being a very mixed bag, albeit with a signal-to-bullshit ratio that's tilted toward the bullshit end of the spectrum. They have an affinity for pop-psych BS and have jumped heavily on the pop evo psych bandwagon, though. In addition Kanazawa, there's also Ogi Ogas of Survey Fail fame and Gad Saad. There are also a lot of good articles that are accessible to the layperson and they even carried some skeptical blogs like Massimo Pigliucci for some time. So I'd say go for it, if you want to, but it'll probably be a bit of a job with the diverse array of woo they promote.
I think I'll pass - as usually, I don't have much free time at the moment. Anyway, there's a guy called Gad Saad? O_o (It's the same in most Slavic languages.)
And apparently there are actual scholarly sources for its decay :D (via):
|The primary popular magazine whose title contains the word psychology, “Psychology Today, has a readership of more than 3 million people. Initiated in 1967, its early issues featured scientifically grounded and entertaining articles by eminent research psychologists, including Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, Nathan Azrin, Hans Eysenck, and David Lykken. Yet beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 1980s, Psychology Today shifted in content and style to appeal to a more general audience, featuring articles on such pop psychology topics as love, relationships, work, and happiness, most of them written by NON-EXPERTS from a largely NON-SCIENTIFIC perspective (Benjamin & Bryant, 1997). Despite a brief and ill-fated attempt by the APA to rehabilitate the magazine in 1983, Psychology Today’s LACK OF SCIENTIFIC RIGOR PERSISTS TODAY.” --Scott O. Lilienfeld. American Psychologist, Volume 67, No.2, “Public Skepticism of Psychology: Why Many People Perceive the Study of Human Behavior as Unscientific”, pg. 119.|
What the fuck is with women, specifically house wife/stay at home mom types, and this dumb as shit book. The writing is as bad as Twilight (it started as twilight fan fic, in fact), and the bdsm is trite. The eroticism is "oh yes. fuck me there. yes. that is good. i like to be fucked and spanked. yes. please. oh. oh. this is nice. i am aroused. I am turned on.".
What the heck kind of sex scene were you expecting from fanfiction? That's about as good as it ever gets.
Oh, it was a Twilight fanfic? Everything makes so much sense now. You have to remember that the vanilla types have never come into contact with anything as kinky as this "spanking" stuff before. Not that there's anything wrong with being vanilla, of course. Except when they take pictures of themselves doing absolutely disgusting things like having missionary sex with no ropes or whips and then post it all over the internet and shove it down our throats in banner ads. You know what, vanillas just make me sick!
The thing about this "escaping from responsibility" thing is that you only ever hear it from the dom/mes... isn't it more likely that the clientele of outspoken dominatrices are high-flying rich men ("hey, we have judges, lawyers and rich businessmen!") because they are the ones that can afford $600 per hour, rather than this is what the occupation causes them to want? I'm not convinced that this sort of "release" thing is anywhere near a proper explanation.
It could be true, but only in some cases for the reason you suggest. Any "explanation" will necessarily involve gratuitious amounts of intellectual masturbation, as even basic demographic statistics of BDSM practitioners are either non-existent or drawn from extremely biased samples.
There is one easy answer. "it fucking feels good, and that's all that matters". ;-)
All sexual studies draw from one selection bias to the other. Hell, this is why we can't answer the question "what percentage of the population is actually gay?" - and of course, not least because defining "gay" for this purpose is a clusterfuck. Hence why LGBT groups say it's in the range of 10-15% but an ONS survey recently came out with 3%. Fuckin' statistics...
But in any case, here is a complete list of people I know with submissive tendencies and high-power high-responsibility jobs:
You might get a good kick out of this post, then: http://pennyred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/chains-of-oppression-katie-roiphe-lena.html?spref=fb
It's possible gottfried made it better!
Also, he's trying way to hard to layer on the symbolism. Isn't it enough to just have Jesus handing America the Constitution? Do you really need to label and explain all the background people, too?
Awesome! I had seen the first one before, but not the Jesus one.
Also check the reworded one: "We couldn't have two black people next to each other, that would be a mob"
But seriously, this guy seems radically unhinged for someone who knows his way around a paintbrush.
the "forgotten man" is revisionist history at it's finest. all these corporate shills turning to "help" the guy, but "socialists" like Rossevelt turning away.
IN WHAT FUCKING WORLD??/
I may actually get one done. Political Zoo by Savage good you think?
No idea, I've never actually read/listened to any Savage for more than about five seconds or so. You were supposed to do the new Matt Ridley book anyway -- I want to see if he's out-Lomborged Lomborg.
Handy link for tracking when I am posting and all that 
Endorsement by Pinker, not too surprising. But James Watson? I guess he has gotten a bit wingnutty in recent times.
Every article you've given me today had the words "cognitive science of religion". You know, I do not think that was even a concept when I graduated. It's what I was interested in, but we didn't really have any useful technology then. I think the MRI is mostly a 90s tool in cognitive science, and the rMRI even a "00"s tool.
I was / am seriously contemplating going back to school for "study of mind" issues: language, religion and cognition in general, but I worry I couldn't hack the science that would have to be part of preparing. Lots of A&P, but also crap like physics and chemistry, and celluar chemistry and crap.
And by the way, it amazes me how much one tool has revolutionized "mind" studies (vs. brain studies) so much. I assume equal discovries in physics, and space and shit are equally revolutionizing. There is more to learn, to study, than we can ever have time to do, adn we just keep inventing things to go deeper, farther, smaller, larger, etc.
humans and science be stud muffins!
There's a lot of neuro-hype surrounding fMRI scans, though. (Look at the pretty brain pictures!) As Jerry Fodor once said: "It’s been clear for a while now that mental processes occur north of the neck. The rest is a sort of biological bookkeeping."
It is true, though, that one of the big problems with early cognitive models is that they ignored the brain (in the earliest cases, this wasn't really a choice, though, so much as a result of cognitive neuroscience not existing). After Damasio, it's a travesty that an emotional component is still absent from so many cognitive architectures -- though that's beginning to change.
In the research I've been doing, the earliest work I found that might be called "cognitive science of religion (CSR)" is Guthrie's 1993 book. Use of the term doesn't seem to appear until around the early 2000s, though.
What's A&P? (I'm guessing nothing to do with this.) It's not an incredibly science heavy field, but you need to have a decent grounding in bio/neuroscience and definitely stats. Some upper level psych courses are almost entirely stats. Possibly some comp sci. Depends on what school you go to, though.
I'd either stay in colorado, or do it in france. A&P is anatomy and physiology. I'm gussing you kinda need more knowledge about how brain works, in ways I didn't really get in my undergrad classes. ;-)
The reality is it's been nearly 20 years since i sat in class, and much longer since it was general ed/general science. oh well. it might be a pipe dream anyhow, as it's so costly now to go to school. I paid 1100 per semester, at CU, and now it's up to nearly 7800 just for classes. sheesh.
But when we get hyperpolarised MRI working we'll revolutionise the whole field of cognitive science by tracking individual cells and specific chemical uptake within the brain.
Or at least, that's what I tell the people who are paying for it.
It really is an amazing tool, if you understand the limits of it. I've seen studies on depression, that show (in conjunction with normal cat and mri) that the hypothalamus is smaller in some 75% of depressive people, and that "anti depressants" will increase the size of it. (Meditation actually does the same thing, surprisingly).
I also like watching the differences seen, somewhat regularly, between people who are reading a text, people who are asked to make something up, people who are asked to relate a true story as far as they know it, and people who are asked to solve math or logical problems and "talk" at the same time.
Those are some amazing things. so prelimiary, of course, but it does show that different parts of the brain assist in each of those different activities. ie "talking" is not just one part of the brain, and "thinking" can engage a whole host of differences across the "type" of thinking.
I would like to see a really trust worthy study of how women and men's brains work. I do think we are biologically different in the head, just cause the hormones running in our body HAVE to do something, even if a tiny something.