Fascinating, eloquent and a very bold speech. His cricketing talents might get lost in time but Sangakkara's speech will be remembered for a long long time.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Confirmation Bias & Gender
"Research on biased information seeking demonstrates that after decisions, people show a preference for supporting rather than conflicting information (confirmation bias). In a laboratory study (N = 86 German undergraduates), we examined the interactive effects of different decision types and gender on the confirmation bias. Our study revealed that women showed less confirmation bias when the decision concerned themselves and their mate (interdependent decision) compared to a decision concerning only themselves (independent decision). In contrast, men showed less confirmation bias when they made an independent compared to an interdependent decision. Results were discussed in terms of self-construal differences between men and women leading to different motivations (defense vs. accuracy) during the information seeking depending on the decision type."
- Abstract Here (via Kevin Lewis)
- Abstract Here (via Kevin Lewis)
€€ From Farming Subsides To Scientific Investments - Europe
"More than €4.5 billion would be transferred from the E.U.'s farm subsidies program, the Common Agricultural Policy. This is the enormous pile of cash paid by E.U. authorities to farmers each year to keep them in business, to keep food products rolling off the production line, and to keep fields fallow--as well as to diversify their businesses. Depending on where your political feelings lie, the CAP is either a majestic insurance policy that ties nations together and ensures E.U. autonomy in food produce, or a monstrous and embarrassing carbuncle that sees billions of euros wasted on an industry that should evolve. Whichever way you look at it, the CAP eats up so much of the E.U.'s funds that even this smallish redistribution of cash is a revelation.
The new science money will be spent on all sorts of initiatives, big and small. One of the first areas gives research priorities for projects on "healthy aging." One previous beneficiary that won't see additional cash, however, is the impressive ITER European fusion reaction experiments--destined to perhaps replace traditional nuclear power as an infinitely more sustainable and non-polluting alternative--which will now have to earn extra cash from member states individually."
- More Here
The new science money will be spent on all sorts of initiatives, big and small. One of the first areas gives research priorities for projects on "healthy aging." One previous beneficiary that won't see additional cash, however, is the impressive ITER European fusion reaction experiments--destined to perhaps replace traditional nuclear power as an infinitely more sustainable and non-polluting alternative--which will now have to earn extra cash from member states individually."
- More Here
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Quote of the Day
"There are two types of people: those who try to win and those who try to win arguments. They are never the same."
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Larry Crowne
Fantasy... unemployment is never this "euphoric" leave alone someone like Julia Roberts falling for the one. Quintessential American nice guy Tom Hanks tries hard in vain, when the unemployment rate is 9.1%. That said, this is a feel good movie, delivers much better than the reality of polarized politics.
Btw. I am looking forward for movie version (*ing Mr. Hanks) of that great book How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Son of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else by Michael Gates Gill.
Btw. I am looking forward for movie version (*ing Mr. Hanks) of that great book How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Son of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else by Michael Gates Gill.
David Brooks Is Frustrated & Rightly So...
"The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too."
- More Frustration Here
The number one factor behind this dissonance and irrationality was, is and will be - CABLE NEWS. It is the worst thing that has happened to American democracy. Let's hope it doesn't take this country into the abyss.
Paul Samuelson's famous quote on Milton Friedman - "Friedman had a point but often overstated it like a boy who learned how to spell the word banana but did not know where to stop."
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too."
- More Frustration Here
The number one factor behind this dissonance and irrationality was, is and will be - CABLE NEWS. It is the worst thing that has happened to American democracy. Let's hope it doesn't take this country into the abyss.
Paul Samuelson's famous quote on Milton Friedman - "Friedman had a point but often overstated it like a boy who learned how to spell the word banana but did not know where to stop."
On Non-Human Animal Suffering - Richard Dawkins on Vivisection
I wonder why no one ever came up with this simple evolutionary theory of pain ... well that's why Dawkins is well Dawkins. And yes, morality flourishes more in an atheists open world. Best piece I have read so far this year - Richard Dawkins on vivisection:
"Most of us nowadays believe that dogs and other non-human mammals can feel pain, and no reputable scientist today would follow Descartes' and Harvey's horrific example and dissect a living mammal without anaesthetic. British law, among others, would severely punish them if they did (although invertebrates are not so well protected, not even large-brained octopuses). Nevertheless, most of us seem to assume, without question, that the capacity to feel pain is positively correlated with mental dexterity - with the ability to reason, think, reflect and so on. My purpose here is to question that assumption. I see no reason at all why there should be a positive correlation. Pain feels primal, like the ability to see colour or hear sounds. It feels like the sort of sensation you don't need intellect to experience. Feelings carry no weight in science but, at the very least, shouldn't we give the animals the benefit of the doubt?
Without going into the interesting literature on Animal Suffering (see, for instance, Marian Stamp Dawkins's excellent book of that title, and her forthcoming Rethinking Animals), I can see a Darwinian reason why there might even be be a negative correlation between intellect and susceptibility to pain. I approach this by asking what, in the Darwinian sense, pain is for. It is a warning not to repeat actions that tend to cause bodily harm. Don't stub your toe again, don't tease a snake or sit on a hornet, don't pick up embers however prettily they glow, be careful not to bite your tongue. Plants have no nervous system capable of learning not to repeat damaging actions, which is why we cut live lettuces without compunction.
It is an interesting question, incidentally, why pain has to be so damned painful. Why not equip the brain with the equivalent of a little red flag, painlessly raised to warn, "Don't do that again"? In The Greatest Show on Earth , I suggested that the brain might be torn between conflicting urges and tempted to 'rebel', perhaps hedonistically, against pursuing the best interests of the individual's genetic fitness, in which case it might need to be whipped agonizingly into line. I'll let that pass and return to my primary question for today: would you expect a positive or a negative correlation between mental ability and ability to feel pain? Most people unthinkingly assume a positive correlation, but why?
Isn't it plausible that a clever species such as our own might need less pain, precisely because we are capable of intelligently working out what is good for us, and what damaging events we should avoid? Isn't it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement?
At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings."
"Most of us nowadays believe that dogs and other non-human mammals can feel pain, and no reputable scientist today would follow Descartes' and Harvey's horrific example and dissect a living mammal without anaesthetic. British law, among others, would severely punish them if they did (although invertebrates are not so well protected, not even large-brained octopuses). Nevertheless, most of us seem to assume, without question, that the capacity to feel pain is positively correlated with mental dexterity - with the ability to reason, think, reflect and so on. My purpose here is to question that assumption. I see no reason at all why there should be a positive correlation. Pain feels primal, like the ability to see colour or hear sounds. It feels like the sort of sensation you don't need intellect to experience. Feelings carry no weight in science but, at the very least, shouldn't we give the animals the benefit of the doubt?
Without going into the interesting literature on Animal Suffering (see, for instance, Marian Stamp Dawkins's excellent book of that title, and her forthcoming Rethinking Animals), I can see a Darwinian reason why there might even be be a negative correlation between intellect and susceptibility to pain. I approach this by asking what, in the Darwinian sense, pain is for. It is a warning not to repeat actions that tend to cause bodily harm. Don't stub your toe again, don't tease a snake or sit on a hornet, don't pick up embers however prettily they glow, be careful not to bite your tongue. Plants have no nervous system capable of learning not to repeat damaging actions, which is why we cut live lettuces without compunction.
It is an interesting question, incidentally, why pain has to be so damned painful. Why not equip the brain with the equivalent of a little red flag, painlessly raised to warn, "Don't do that again"? In The Greatest Show on Earth , I suggested that the brain might be torn between conflicting urges and tempted to 'rebel', perhaps hedonistically, against pursuing the best interests of the individual's genetic fitness, in which case it might need to be whipped agonizingly into line. I'll let that pass and return to my primary question for today: would you expect a positive or a negative correlation between mental ability and ability to feel pain? Most people unthinkingly assume a positive correlation, but why?
Isn't it plausible that a clever species such as our own might need less pain, precisely because we are capable of intelligently working out what is good for us, and what damaging events we should avoid? Isn't it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement?
At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings."
Quote of the Day
"The disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they don't know...How, then, can the dog be anything other than a lover of learning since it defines what's its own and what's alien."
- Plato
- Plato
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)