Author
|
Topic: Cognitive Biases (Read 11787 times)
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 129
|
Ahh, this actually make some sense.
Though World government is the one most prone to corruption and tyranny of the majority.
Yea, basically I agree people SHOULD behave better. I am not sure it has hope though.
It's also a matter of game theory.
While some people are evil, some people are altruistic but most are opportunistic.
So the opportunistic would go with whatever benefits them, whether it's the right or bad thing to do.
I am not sure if this kind of behaviour is acquired or you are born with.
Some people would like to say children are like a blank slate, but it's not true.
Children are born with different personalities and abilities, this might prove "educating people" will never actually work.
For instance, there is now DNA diet. Which is fitting the diet according to your DNA. If your DNA can determine which diet is best for you, why can't your DNA determine other cognitive things?
So, I agree most people are opportunistic and not very kind. I am just not sure any amount of ideology or effort can easily solve this though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
It's more like... babies who don't have proper conditions don't fulfill their potential, but they are born with this potential.
But I think a 2 years old infant already have a very defined unique personality.
Think that the child brains starts to develop before it's even born.
But yea, if a child is being abused in his first 2 years of life, he will develop very poorly.
There is a regression in literacy and intelligence in the last 200 years though.
The reason is that natural selection based on looks might converge to a lower(yet still higher than without it) IQ.
200 years ago your chances of survival and bringing children were very dependent on your intelligence.
Now you don't really need to be very intelligent to survive and have children. It's more random or based on physical attraction.
Again, you need to think about it as a game theory.
In a game theory, certain conditions lead to certain results.
Does the world we live today makes the "kind people" "win"?
If the conditions are good, few kind people can turn into the majority.
If the conditions are bad, even a society with mostly kind people will regress into a less kind society.
You need the right conditions.
There isn't a very big reward for being intelligent or kind nowadays.
If a kind person is surrounded with a lot of nasty people, he might turn himself into a nasty person as well.
So that starting point is that most people are selfish, nasty and opportunist.
How can you make the kind people manifest?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
There is a regression in the West though, but 3rd world countries do have more literate people.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
That is about IQ, not literacy, but I think this is highly controversial. Here is from a review article written 3 years after the one you gave me:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300198
In the present study, we must emphasize that even though we identified several studies showing a decline in IQ, there is currently still a much larger pool of studies showing an increase in IQ. For example, Flynn (2012) has reported a positive Flynn Effect in the USA among adults between 1995 and 2001 of 3.06 points per decade, when comparing the WISC III and the WISC IV. Among US children, between 1989 and 2001, he reports a rise of 3.36 points per decade based on the same tests. Moreover, in their recent meta-analysis, Pietschnig and Voracek (2015) confirmed the 3 points per decade average increase in IQ. Therefore, it is imperative to discuss our negative Flynn Effects in the light of the positive Flynn Effects findings in the literature.
There are a number of limitations to this analysis. Ideally, in order to establish and understand the causes of the negative Flynn Effect, we need large samples, annual cohorts over a longer period of time, and, where possible, the ability to rule out potential confounding factors such as sex and immigration. We only have this for Finland and, to a lesser extent, Denmark and Norway. Here, we have, from the military conscript data, samples which are almost the entire male population of a certain age, year-on-year. The impact of immigration is likely to be very small, as we have seen, and this is especially so in the case of Finland. Ideally, we would need more samples of this quality and also female samples of this quality as it is possible that the negative Flynn Effect is working at a different rate among females. A second limitation can be found in our ability to test hypotheses as to the possible causes of the negative Flynn Effect. As discussed, some of these data have had to be drawn upon because they are the best that we have. Also, because a negative Flynn Effect has only been found in a small number of countries, we are left with a limitation of power, leaving it difficult to have confidence in any correlational finding in this study. In some cases, such as the immigration correlation, it raises the question of whether the correlation reflects immigration causing a country to have a negative Flynn Effect or whether countries that are more developed, and so have a negative Flynn Effect, are more likely to have high levels of immigration.
Also, IQ is determined to a large degree by genetics (around 75%), while many other personality traits are determined to a larger degree by culture and upbringing. I don't necessarily think people will get a much higher IQ with a better educational system, but they might get more informed and mentally healthy.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 10:51:12 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
It's more like... babies who don't have proper conditions don't fulfill their potential, but they are born with this potential.
But I think a 2 years old infant already have a very defined unique personality.
Think that the child brains starts to develop before it's even born.
But yea, if a child is being abused in his first 2 years of life, he will develop very poorly.
There is a regression in literacy and intelligence in the last 200 years though.
The reason is that natural selection based on looks might converge to a lower(yet still higher than without it) IQ.
200 years ago your chances of survival and bringing children were very dependent on your intelligence.
Now you don't really need to be very intelligent to survive and have children. It's more random or based on physical attraction.
Again, you need to think about it as a game theory.
In a game theory, certain conditions lead to certain results.
Does the world we live today makes the "kind people" "win"?
If the conditions are good, few kind people can turn into the majority.
If the conditions are bad, even a society with mostly kind people will regress into a less kind society.
You need the right conditions.
There isn't a very big reward for being intelligent or kind nowadays.
If a kind person is surrounded with a lot of nasty people, he might turn himself into a nasty person as well.
So that starting point is that most people are selfish, nasty and opportunist.
How can you make the kind people manifest?
I think they are manifested by the women choosing to be with 'bad guys' rather than with 'kind guys'.
This will make them have babies which are less kind, resulting in a society which is genetically less kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I think they are manifested by the women choosing to be with 'bad guys' rather than with 'kind guys'.
This will make them have babies which are less kind, resulting in a society which is genetically less kind.
I am not convinced that this tendency very large. I think more women are interested in choosing wealthy guys, although I think most women would be happy with a guy that does his share of housework, and has a stable work situation with a decent income. In general, I think it might be harder for a woman to find a decent guy, than for a guy to find a decent woman. Women are much more centered around the mean, while guys have a much higher standard deviation. This doesn't just seem to be related to IQ, but to behavior in general.
Like for example, some feminists argue that most business leaders are men, and use this to argue that our society is unfair. But there are also more men in prison....
When you look only upon one side of the spectrum, it is actually selecton bias.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 09:31:25 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Thank you for putting that 'if' in there - it is not entirely clear that this is actually the case. It is plausible and has a non-overwhelming degree of evidentiary support. Also, there's not so much need for it to be IQ. There are several things it could be.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 11:19:39 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
After reading about it in this brilliant book:
https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
I have added a small section about "the law of small numbers":
The law of small numbers
Just like the average value of coin tosses gets closer to the expected value with more trails, it also gets more rare or extreme average values with less trails. This is known as the law of small numbers. Rare or extreme cases are more common for smaller groups of people, or there is a higher variability between smaller groups of people than between larger groups of people. Smaller schools for example seem to be overrepresented among the best schools, but they also seem to be equally much overrepresented among the worst schools. Maybe just because there is a higher variability between smaller schools than between larger schools.
http://www.archania.org/biases/
This makes me think... if there really is a higher variability in IQ for men than for women, could that be because women have 2 x-chromosomes, while men only have 1? The x-chromosome has about 155 million base pairs, while the y-chromosome only has about 59 million base pairs. So women have about 96 million base pairs more than men.
The human genome has about 2.6 billion base pairs. 96 million / 2.6 billion = 0.0369, or 4.7%. So women have about 4.7% more DNA than men. Shouldn't this also make them a bit more "average" according to the law of large/small numbers?
Women have 2 versions of all these genes, while men only have 1 version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genes_on_human_chromosome_X
So... it seems like women actually are somewhat superior..... or at least women have higher genetic diversity (would be somewhat equivalent to less inbreeding).
X-linked intellectual disability accounts for ~16% of all cases of intellectual disability in males.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disability
I have now rewritten the section about selection bias in gender studies:
Selection bias in gender studies
Women have two X chromosomes, while males only have one X chromosome. Since males only get one copy of each gene on the X chromosome, they are much less likely than females of obtaining fully functional versions of all these genes. However, since females obtain twice as many X chromosomal genes, they are also twice as likely to obtain at least one dysfunctional version of each gene. Statistically, this would mean that males have a higher variability of the genes expressed on the X chromosome. The X chromosome contains many genes related to neurological development. Some feminists might argue that western democracies with equal rights for men and women still are discriminating women, since there tends to be more men in favorable societal positions, such as in manager positions. However, there also tends to be more men in prisons and in other unfavorable societal positions. This might simply be due to a greater variability in IQ for men than for women. It is actually selection bias to only focus upon one side of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 04:50:17 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
That is so speculative you had better have it marked clearly
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
That is so speculative you had better have it marked clearly
Exactly what do you think is so speculative? Here are the x chromosomal possibilities for males and females. Nothing speculative about that.
Also, there are many genes on the X chromosome related to neurological development. Nothing speculative about that either... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_intellectual_disability
I have now added this diagram and a reference to an article about x-linked intellectual disabilities to my page about biases: http://www.archania.org/biases/
I found this in another article:
In 1938 Lionel Penrose first observed that more males than females in the population are mentally retarded in a survey and classification of those in institutional care and their relatives.1 The ratio of males to females was 1.25:1. This figure has been substantiated by numerous subsequent studies in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe and all agree with the observation of an approximately 30% excess of males being affected with mental retardation.2,3,4,5,6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563255/
If 30% more males are retarded, then males should also be overrepresented among the most clever people, otherwise females should have a higher IQ than men.
This makes perfect sense if the semifunctional combinations on average aren't as good as just having one functional gene. And we know that several dysfunctional proteins aren't just neutral. In many cases they actually cause harm.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 04:02:11 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
