Evolution is about niche-filling

Psychologists don't incorporate this idea often enough, imo.

To significant degree, we become who we become because nobody else in our immediate surroundings is currently filling that niche.

Surveys of desired numbers of sexual partners

Using such a survey as indicative of evolutionary biological differences (between males and females) could only be viewed as legitimate if it can be proven to be consistent across vastly different social groups.

Do strictly religious individuals respond the same way? If not, then the answers would be more an indication of social factors, which, if I'm not mistaken, is kind of the opposite of the point attempting to be proved.

Guys know that they are supposed to want lots of chicks,... at least partly because they have been given social pressure indicating that this is the correct choice.

So are we saying that the social factors evolve, and the impact on the individual is based on social pressure? Thereby essentially still falling under an evolutionary umbrella? Or are we really saying that these preferences are inherent and have genetic bases?

What's more political than politics?

To what degree should the answer to that question determine your expectations, actions, and moral compass when engaging in the practice?

What are some boundary conditions of this calculation?

For purposes of the discussion, we can either assume or not assume strict protection of individual rights without exception (ie. we should not, necessarily, use pre-existing moral or legal boundaries).

We could begin to incorporate a sliding scale of the importance of individual rights based on a moral judgment of "fairness" (certainly, our experience would indicate this to be the eventual conclusion, whether that is a purely political result or not, and whether or not that distinction would matter).

I assume the discussion would vibrate back and forth (potentially around a varying or sliding center point) between "it violated that person's rights and therefore should not be tolerated" and "the violation of that person's rights is justified by the benefit that can be provided to another individual who, through either his/her own fault or factors outside his/her's control, did not receive the same/an acceptable degree of opportunity/result as the person whose rights are to be infringed upon.

So, should Robin Hoods be prosecuted or not?

Should governments engage in redistribution? If so, should it be done as blindly as possible (with all the potential unintended consequences) with rules as well-defined and fixed as possible? Or should it be done in as undefined a manner as possible?

Which is likely to lead to the greater number of unintended consequences and/or corruption?

It's quite possible that the entire intellectual exercise is a waste of time. I don't know if there would be broader implications of such a determination.

What are your questions?

Q. Is this going to be on the exam?

A. How should I know? I don't even work for this institution. Security will now escort me out. Have a great rest of your lives!

Online IQ/EQ/Superhero Tests

While the test results themselves may be unreliable, non-predictive nonsense, the degree to which an individual values the importance of the results may be useful and predictive.

Dissonant Chords

I'm astonished by the vitriolic responses of both Woody Allen himself and those rushing to defend him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?src=me

In certain instances, such an emotional response (meaning my own astonishment) to widespread behavior by large numbers of people indicates a flawed set of assumptions by myself regarding the circumstances involved, and is reason for re-evaluation. In other cases the dissonance is the inevitable result of aligning oneself with the truth even when it proves to be unpopular, along with (potentially) a flawed set of assumptions regarding the motivations and/or capabilities of others drawing the diametrically opposed conclusions.

As of this point I am assuming this is an example of the latter.

Punishing Cheaters and Rationality

The underlying question is one of rationality.

Do human beings act rationally?

It has been posited that the following reproducible behavior demonstrates irrational/spiteful behavior.

There are two individuals who can stand to gain from a situation. There is an amount of money ($10) available to be distributed between the two individuals. One participant can determine the breakdown of the money to be distributed. For simplicity we will say that he can decide on a split anywhere from 90/10 (the most greedy option) to 10/90 (the least greedy option). If the other person accepts the deal, the money is distributed as agreed upon. But if the other person refuses the deal, neither party receives anything.

It can be assumed that when the offer is deemed "fair" or even "generous" (50%, or 90%, for example) the recipient will accept. But it can be shown that when the offer is deemed unfair, the recipient will often reject the deal, even though it serves as a punishment to both sides. ie. the recipient gives up his/her potential share in order to punish the one making the offer.

This has been characterized as "irrational spite".

I would fundamentally disagree, and would instead argue that this is exactly evidence of the larger point that was being made in the overall discussion - that being the instinctual, rational tendency of certain species to punish cheaters. I assume it would be accepted that the act was a form of "punishment for a cheater". The question is simply one of rationality.

Looked at under the microscope of the single interaction, it can appear as an irrational, spiteful behavior. But looked at from a broader scope, it appears entirely instinctually rational.

Initially we should examine the potential recipient's context for judging the value of the offer. The amount of money involved is weighed against the importance of punishing the cheater. To put it simply, if the person really needs that one dollar, he almost certainly will take the deal. Whereas if the amount of money is of relatively minimal importance to the potential recipient, the benefit of punishing a cheater, and thereby potentially changing the behavior in the future, is of greater potential long-term benefit than the immediate benefit of accepting the unfair offer and encouraging the cheating behavior.

ie. the offer will be rejected by those who can afford to make the moral stand. Is there anything more rational than that?

To make the point further, one would simply use larger dollar amounts. As the dollar amount increases, the potential relative benefit of taking the moral stand over accepting the offer reduces. Assume $100,000.00 and a 10/90 split. $10,000 will be accepted by far more people, than $1 out of $10. As the dollar amount increases, so too will the percentage. There is almost no benefit to refusing the offer at dollar values that represent significant, life-altering amounts.

Perhaps most importantly, there are a variety of other ways to potentially punish the cheater in the future, especially if the dollar amount received affords greater personal freedom of action.

And the likelihood of the act of "punishing the cheater" ever resulting in a larger potential offer in the future tends to zero as the nominal amount of the unfair offer increases. In that sense, even among those for whom the dollar amount is of minimal importance, who can afford to take the "spiteful" moral stand to punish the cheater, if they eventually come to decide that the behavior will not change, and there will be never be a larger/more fair offer (ie. there is no longer-term benefit to be had), those people, too, would eventually come to accept the unfair deal, while stuffing away the feelings of being slighted (and the accompanying desire to punish) for another day and situation.

To summarize:
we do like to punish cheaters, and this is rational
we will engage in actions that cause short-term discomfort (for lack of a better term) in order to engage in that punishment (in fact, this is no different from any other action taken for a payment. the only difference is assuredness of benefit/payment and time frame)
when we are offered an unfair offer that could potentially significantly improve our situation, we will accept that offer even if it remains unfair to the same relative degree

so we decide the worthiness of certain moral stands based on potential costs involved.

I find this behavior a rather straightforward example of the sort of behaviors that would normally be categorized as entirely rational when viewed through the appropriate lens.

Any questions?...........................

err.....

What are your questions?.......

Q. What the holy hell are you talking about?

A. http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-12

Q. Really? You made an entire post about what is essentially a semantic difference?

A. Perhaps... which of course implies "perhaps not". Also I don't really appreciate the tone of your questions. Thank you for them nonetheless.

Farmer's Economic Almanac

Date: direction amount, reason, direction correct, amount percentage
2/6/2014: up 52, "green shoots in emerging markets", Yes, 1/4
2/7/2014: down 20, "traders are concerned about tapering"
2/10/2014: down 30, "concerned about growth, tech flat"

2/11/2014: up 71, "job market looks good"
2/12/2014: down 117, "global economic growth slowed, emerging markets still unstable, manuf. slowing"
2/13/2014: up 60, "sense of calm, that things aren't that bad, tech good"
2/14/2014: down 122, "upset with central banks"
2/17/2014: up 250, "confidence in Asia"
2/19/2014: up 12, "stable job growth"
2/20/2014: down 94, "uncertainty in Asia"
2/21/2014: down 150, "consumer confidence dropped"
2/24/2014: up 117, "manufacturing increasing"
2/25/2014: down 20, "terrorism fears"
2/26/2014: down 30, "no terrorism, but no big news"
2/27/2014: up 171, "numbers expected to be good"
2/28/2014: down 220, "numbers were not good. worried about tapering"

How To Reduce Healthcare Costs

How to reduce healthcare costs, lower childhood obesity rates and improve overall health

1. "Force" kids to brush their teeth after every meal

In order to incent those who may not be interested, institute an extra 5 minute window in which they are allowed to brush while the non-brushers have to return to class. If this isn't enough time, you take away 5 minutes of their "free time" during the eating break and then add the additional 5 minutes to the eating/brushing window. So, for example, if you normally have a 30 minute lunch, the brushers get 25 minutes of free eating time, then 10 minutes to brush, for a total of 35 minutes. The non-brushers have 30 minutes of free time, with no extra brush time, for a total of 30 minutes.

What are your questions?

Q. Why are so many kids overweight?

A. Because they don't brush their teeth after every meal.

Q. How does this work?

A. First, it reduces the cravings because there's a small "cost" added to the activity. It's a form of negative reinforcement, or, if you like, negative positive reinforcement, since we're not taking something away (which is sometimes the definition of negative reinforcement), but what we're adding is a "negative" aspect. This makes the activity less desirable, which will naturally result in a reduction of frequency/degree.

Q. How else does the practice of brushing help curb appetite?

A. It removes the taste from the mouth. Part of the reason we fixate on food in between meals is because we can still taste some of it. It's a constant reminder. A clean mouth removes that source of fixation, thereby reducing the craving, which naturally leads to a more reasonable appetite. There is also a natural tendency to drink more water instead of sugary drinks, both because of the "potential cost" involved with the sugary drink, as well as the effect that a clean mouth will have on taste buds. When your taste buds are already being excited by leftover sweet tastes, water isn't as attractive. It just can't compete.

All of these factors tend to be self-reinforcing, and as such offer great promise for long-term results.

Q. How else does the practice of brushing help overall health?

A. Well, obviously the reduction in eating and associated obesity rates will be the most immediate benefit, but one can reasonably assume a corresponding increase in "healthy activities". When you feel healthier in your mouth, or when you feel cleaner in just about any other way, you tend to want to be more active. This hypothesis would have to be tested, of course, but it is assumed for current purposes.

Also, by forcing young people to accept this process as part of their daily routine, they are much more likely to engage in the practice as they get older, with all the direct and indirect benefits that can be assumed. Not to mention the obvious improvement and dental hygiene and health, whether or not we regard the concept of "focal sepsis" as having any merit, or view the removing of teeth as a cure for mental illness.

Thanks for coming and thanks for your questions. Have a great day and remember to brush!

RISC Website Architecture

is what it really is.

you know I'm right.

The Balancing Act

I guess it's all just a balancing act between confidence and humility. Who does it best?

My Goodness, The Blood Moons Is A Comin'

Tax day will be the next blood moon.

My Goodness.

Imma start diggin my shelter today, and fillin' it with the Bible for to read,

and some Ko-rans in order to burn for heat.

The Only Hope

The continued existence and emergence of Edward Snowdens is the only hope.

They provide the only effective adversarial pressure, without which expansion occurs without natural bound, eventually suffocating the supposed protectorates...

of course,...

"for their own good".

A cynical case for inflationary monetary systems

You should not, necessarily, believe in the government's ability to "store value" for you.

By holding cash, you do just that.

By purchasing property, you make the decisions as to what will likely store value, or increase in value, whether in real or nominal terms. Of course interventionist government policies distort (read: essentially drive and control) and determine which industries will "profit" the most from the inflationary monetary system that underlies those gains. So the core problem may more accurately be identified as the spending policies themselves, rather than the simple existence of an inflationary monetary system.

Of course it is a small step to understanding the symbiotic relationship between the two. The policies can not be implemented without the printing of the cash. So in the "real" sense of the world we actually live in, they can logically be viewed as intertwined and essentially a single functioning system.

Not that drawing a distinction would even necessarily matter. Nothing is likely to change, certainly not any time soon. But in a theoretical sense, I wonder what a strictly controlled inflationary monetary system (ie. we will print 3% additional dollars every year and distribute them evenly among the population) combined with a non-economically-interventionist government would, theoretically, produce.

The questions regarding the effect on the poorest of the population, as well as the country's ability to compete economically with emerging economies (vis a vis minimum wages, both in terms of mandates and logically necessary increases due to the inflation) would of course have to be examined.

The fact is I am as skeptical

of a pasty, white dude wearing a hoodie as I am of a bandana or droopy pants-wearing black man. The color of the skin has literally no effect on my degree of skepticism, or the degree to which I would tend to monitor the person's actions. The only thing that will affect my skepticism is the person's "behavior" in the sense that the more they appear to be meandering, the more skeptical I will naturally be.

The unease that comes from the inability to see another's face is hard-wired, instinctual and an entirely justifiable survival mechanism. The desire to hide one's face whilst engaging in illicit acts is equally so.

This is what you call "cullin' cold"

or killin' cold if you prefer.

angry sort of, make you think you offended the Gods kind of cold.

Skype videos should store data streams locally and have the data re-synced when reposting

Skype videos should store data streams locally and have the data re-synced when reposting.

Just because a live interview or speech has choppy/crappy audio and video does not mean the reposting should.

I trust this is obvious (clearly it should be for one-way speeches but the idea applies just as well to two-way communications.. just merge the two sources) and will become the norm going forward.

Thank you.

A Complete Civics Course In One Page

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/edward-snowden-nsa-ruling_n_4455290.html

and for posterity, this includes the following post:

Former government contractor Edward Snowden praised a federal judge's ruling against the National Security Agency's phone surveillance programs on Monday, applauding the judge for bringing the issue "to the light of day."

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled Monday that the agency's phone surveillance program was likely in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

In a statement distributed by journalist Glenn Greenwald and published in the New York Times, Snowden predicted Leon's ruling would be "the first of many" against the controversial surveillance practices.

..... (the rest of the post is probably still available)

but this is the special sauce... in the contextual links down below the post....

U.S. will not seek death penalty for Snowden, attorney general says ...

LMFAO

THERE, KIDS, IS YOUR EDUCATION. THE REST IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, BUT THIS IS THE WORLD THAT YOU INHABIT. WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE ARE FACTS. THE REST IS UP FOR INTERPRETATION.

On "Drones" and Immigration

Perhaps the advancement of drone technology will end the debate regarding illegal immigration.

I would be in favor of that.

To be clear, this would mean the end of the tacit acceptance of illegal immigration. At a certain point, it may mean the end of immigration as an accepted part of American life (to a great degree, at least as the default position).

To begin the discussion, what would be the absolute worst degree of overcrowding that would/should (which may or may not be very different answers) be accepted? Carrying capacity is a legitimate thing, no? If not CC, quality of life has its own population related boundaries, no?

Starting from the other extreme, one could simply argue that if it's not needed for purposes of labor or "diversity", it's not needed, and if it's not needed, it's not wanted, and that, by itself, could be sufficient.

Unintended Consequences

A wonderful thing about a free economy is the unintended, unforeseeable consequences.

Amazon's leadership in the drone delivery service will give them an incredible competitive edge...... in the near term.

In the longer term, the technological advances they will help to bring about could unravel the overall competitive edge of their entire business model.

Both aspects of that would be wonderful.

Term Limits (Paradoxically)

Term limits are (perhaps paradoxically) among the most important cornerstones of a free society.

The mentality that craves for the opportunity to retain a single human being in a position of immense power in perpetuity, specifically in *the* position of *most* power, is an ugly, sad, pathetic mindset indeed - assuming it manifests itself, as it inevitably does, in a moment where one's preferred choice is the expected recipient.

As an ideal, it is a fundamentally unamerican one.

I'd explain why, but I tend to take more of a musician's approach in such situations. As long as you like my song, you can interpret it any way you like.