I don’t feel much either. I don’t like too much feeling because I lose a sense of control over self. I don’t -want- emotions taking over, so I keep them under cognitive control or at least awareness.
—-
Oh, it’s no work at all. If I get a flash of annoyance, I come back to my center quickly enough. That’s the kind of conscious control I mean.
But we’re all a little different, so maybe you have something different happening. I don’t think I’m normal per se but not overly weird either.
====
Apathetic would be a word you could use.
====
Here’s the *new* term they use for this: CU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callous_and_unemotional_traits
but you’re not anti-social. Maybe you just didn’t know how to react so without knowing how to react, you didn’t. Instead, you turned your mind to fruit-cups.
Maybe you were just bored. Might be a light form of ADHD 
🙂
—-
“with limited prosocial emotions” to the conduct disorder diagnosis in DSM-5 is to classify a specific subgroup of antisocial youth with distinguishing antisocial behaviors and psychopathic traits.
—-
The IAT is an example of an uncomfortable scientific result. It’s a difficult test to fake – not impossible but it’s one of the harder ones to fake without detection.
I think it could be criticized for being made so public perhaps or being used politically but as a test, it’s rather strong.
It tests more than just racism. It tests many implicit biases.
Its mathematical foundation (graph theory) is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_theory
===
I’d like to see your source, Naveed. The link between implicit association and BEHAVIOR might be questionable. Its use in businesess can CERTAINLY be questionable. But the implicit association seems to be there regardless of the implications presented.
—-
Maybe it’s not really testing implicit bias. MAYBE it’s testing cultural conditioning / expected responses. The flaws don’t seem to be with the test itself: it’s certainly accurately testing SOMETHING.
The question is: What is it testing really? What are the reprecussions (if any).
I don’t want to watch a video. Documentaries can mislead. I’ll take a webpage to read.
====
oh lol this guy. he’s popular in the alt right circles because he’s set himself up as “MR CONTRARY TO LIBERAL UINVERSITY” guy.
====
I didn’t finish my judgement. I’m not dismissing him entirely. But knowing his political bias is surprisingly useful.
===
IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST JORDAN PETERSON
—
Being a political activist *does* taint his credibility however.
I’ve read into the IAT long ago back when I took it a while ago. It didn’t yet make “big news”.
—
Ok, Pinker wouldn’t like it either. He’s Hardwire guy. I don’t know who Gad Saad is though.
====
On the contrary: competing schools of scientific inquiry are always battling.
===
Your neural network didn’t update based on our prior conversations about Pinker.
====
They were similar in an area that interests me since I was a teenager: Connectionism.
Neither one likes it, at least I remember keenly about Pinker being against it.
====
I know they disagree on a lot of issues. Some are legendary debates. Yet it’s because of their similarities that they disagree so strongly about those areas where they disagree.
====
He’s not hardwired. His concept of how the brain works is akin to hard-wiring. [if I remember in Language Instinct, which I read WAY back in the mid 90s, he even had illustrations with wiring diagrams]].
====
‘m not putting Pinker’s genius down in other areas. But this is one area – his cognitive hard-wiring stance that I disagree with along with anything that comes FROM that line of reasoning.
====
ah! There we go. Pinker agreed with Chomsky on “Universal Grammar” and expanded upon it on Language Instinct, making UG evolutionary in nature via deduction.
That’s precisely the area I disagree with both of them on.
I know Chomsky *was* for computational theory of mind. I don’t know if he revised his position to possibly include a UG as emergent properties of neural network or not though.
====
The brain moves and changes even within one’s lifetime. Neural networks have shown themselves computationally in the past 25+ years as being effective modellers of human neurons, if in limited ways.
We’re certainly far from any “Singularity” imo, but nevertheless NNs have proven themselves worthy over purely computational / symbolic manipulation models.
====
Now, it’s possible that features seen by chomsky and pinker are *learned* or at least emergent properties of underlying systems. But that’s much different than genetically encoded/hard-wired as it requires a cooperation with internal and external environments to form, rather than “here’s the genetic blueprint – oh look! it’s the Universal Grammar Module!… except we can’t find it in the brain no matter how much we probe…. hmm…
Point is, the UG was a useful abstraction when Chomsky came up with it. Now it’s inappropriate to go poking around the brain looking for it because it’s not there.
I don’t think even Chomsky is looking for it anymore but he moved onto politics long ago.
=====
It’s very oily in there. Your brain ‘parts’ physically move around throughout your life. The petrified brain you see scientists holding is the result of preservatives : but if you ever see scientists working on a live brain you can see it’s a very liquidy gel, more like warm jello that’s been sitting on the counter rather than cold jello from the refrigerator.
In short, WHEN does the complexity take place?
What parts of ‘us” are due to complexities that arise in the course of non-measurable history and whose algorithms (metaphor) are encoded (metaphor) in the genes?
Which parts of us are due to complexities that arise in the course of one person’s lifetime? [starting at the more measurable but still difficult to measure – conception, through neural development in the womb, with signals ‘encoded’ through listening to mother, to birth, to encodings that take place after birth, through six months, six to nine months, nine to 24 months, etc, through the lifespan of a person?
Which part of ‘us’ are due to the complexities of culture and society and get ‘encoded’? Similar to above, but instead of measuring internal complexities in the brain, one can measure external complexities in society, whose subsets may be learned by individuals within the system.