tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post8829174043719814281..comments2024-03-14T09:50:44.315+00:00Comments on Psychological comments: Gigerenzer and psychological theorizingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-72608847352089272962013-09-03T01:23:01.894+01:002013-09-03T01:23:01.894+01:00I make that apology without qualification. It woul...I make that apology without qualification. It would be worse to harm the good faith of an intellectual community than to omit my opinions (however well-intentioned).<br /><br />If that is understood, then I believe I may continue with your blessing.<br /><br />I would be intellectually remiss if I did not also mention that both conceptions of modularity initially seem to fit the evopsyche hypothesis. On my end, I failed to distinguish between the two because I did not realize the definition is a highly specific one. So until we can rediscover some vocabulary that will suit, I will refer to "modules" within the CPU/GPU model as "chipsets" and "modules" within the orthodox understanding (which correspond more closely to peripherals) as modules.<br /><br />After this agonizing detour, I'll try to address your original question within the chipset model. As for modules, I consider the question settled. You asked a question, I offered a possible answer, and you properly drubbed it as an unlikely explanation.Aeoli Peranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-26483240363996255542013-09-03T00:57:55.788+01:002013-09-03T00:57:55.788+01:00I apologize. I promise that this redefinition was ...I apologize. I promise that this redefinition was due to incompetence and not malice.Aeoli Peranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-64070227915700379332013-09-01T17:14:46.681+01:002013-09-01T17:14:46.681+01:00Thanks. When was the golden age of intelligence? C...Thanks. When was the golden age of intelligence? Charles Murray has some suggestions in Human Excellence, but it is hard to be sure about such estimates, alluring though they may be. On the previous point, that the positive manifold is consistent with g and with the modular approach, then I suggest this is a low redefinition of what is usually meant by modules.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-53797867576970607002013-09-01T01:45:18.163+01:002013-09-01T01:45:18.163+01:00I've read it, although I had to brush up, (Was...I've read it, although I had to brush up, (Was that really last year?)<br /><br />The positive manifold is impossible to deny, but it supports both the "tree" model and the CPU/GPU model, if not the nose cone. I still don't believe the point I'm arguing, but I am enjoying the exchange nonetheless.<br /><br />For completeness, I'll note that my opinion is that human variation in intelligence is due to various levels of retardation from a previous, more ideal design. So we all have an extraordinarily competent general processor (and support system), but they are mostly malfunctioning with the exception of a few geniuses whose creativity and rational abilities never seem to fail them (Newton, Mozart and company).<br /><br />But I suppose that marks me as one of those kooks, doesn't it? I'll just let myself out :-).Aeoli Peranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-27143474720550585802013-08-28T11:30:30.020+01:002013-08-28T11:30:30.020+01:00Intersting points. I think there is a paradox. I a...Intersting points. I think there is a paradox. I assume you have seen my earlier post: http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-nose-cone-versus-tree.html<br />Perhaps we have to move from analogies to contemporary brain data (of good quality) P-FIT is the front runner from brain correlates of intelligence, and it seems general.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-49954015567358095282013-08-27T19:02:53.710+01:002013-08-27T19:02:53.710+01:00That's not even paradoxical. A general process...That's not even paradoxical. A general processor uses different circuitry for different opcodes, even though these opcodes can be combined to solve many novel problems. This is why I referred to "classes" of problems.<br /><br />A better gaming computer often has a GPU in addition to a CPU. This will show up as a slight general superiority in handling the operating system, and a greater superiority in specialized classes of problems.Aeolinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-26325242212038638652013-08-25T22:08:47.493+01:002013-08-25T22:08:47.493+01:00Thanks for your comment. Although it seems feasibl...Thanks for your comment. Although it seems feasible that the mind should be made up of successful modules it is hard to see how this could be tested against the observation that human skills have a positive manifold, such that one presumes a central processor deals with many of life's problems. Indeed, unless that were the case we would be stumped by novel problems, and would die. So far, this has not happened. We are billions, even though we are coping with problems unknown to our species even one or two generations ago. So, whilst I am sure that some problem forms are easier than others in a general sense, the evolutionary hypothesis does not really help me understand why, not in any detail anyway. I was wondering how one specifies the complexity of even simple tasks. Will try to post on that sometime soon. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09320614837348759094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-37958642392414793622013-08-25T21:07:37.109+01:002013-08-25T21:07:37.109+01:00Gigerenzer's book on risk is tremendous.Gigerenzer's book on risk is tremendous.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4624586630299165335.post-3778238216455331632013-08-25T19:24:54.376+01:002013-08-25T19:24:54.376+01:00If we choose evolutionary psychology as our theory...If we choose evolutionary psychology as our theory, then we probably accept the hypothesis that the mind is not a holistic "self" but rather a hodgepodge of highly specialized modules with their own genetic survival in mind. This specialization suggests that some classes of problems will be easier for me if my ancestors bequeathed me with a module that is well-adapted for those classes of problems. If this is true, then it is necessarily true that the module was adaptive according to the principles of selection. Similarly, it must have historically been adaptive to solve such problems as those for which the module is specialized.<br /><br />In short: evopsyche predicts that problems will be easier to solve if our ancestors found it adaptive to evolve specialized circuitry for them (or potential circuitry).<br /><br />Not saying I believe this, only posing it as a possble answer.Aeoli Peranoreply@blogger.com