Social Media Debate: When experts have to interact with the public who THINKS it knows better (is society getting dumber?)

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Applied in academics? Sure if you know all those answers then you can apply them anywhere lol


Also ppl try to downplay it but they can't even answer the questions lol

That's what it comes down to

Do you know the answer
Can you answer it quicker than other ppl?


That kind of information on a wide range of topics on tap?

We gotta break this down.

You know a lot about writing media tv movies entertainment

So does @ViCiouS

I grew up on comics

@4 Dimensional knows math and weather

And we intersect

But this guy has an absurd intersection

This guy knew hip hop from Rakim to Travis Scott.

AND geography, physics, European history, poetry and fashion, etc.

That is just...

Again i know a little about all that stuff

We SHOULD.

BUT his commitment to trivia is just obscene

Again i understand that the questions on the show do repeat in a sense

But even if we IGNORE his sheer knowledge

Which again i am unqualified to decide whether its intelligence or not.

His technique, plunger mastery and reading the question instead of waiting for Alex?

Gawd damn.

But there HAS TO BE something

WE the audience can learn from ALL that, right?
 

largebillsonlyplease

Large
BGOL Legend
We gotta break this down.

You know a lot about writing media tv movies entertainment

So does @ViCiouS

I grew up on comics

@4 Dimensional knows math and weather

And we intersect

But this guy has an absurd intersection

This guy knew hip hop from Rakim to Travis Scott.

AND geography, physics, European history, poetry and fashion, etc.

That is just...

Again i know a little about all that stuff

We SHOULD.

BUT his commitment to trivia is just obscene

Again i understand that the questions on the show do repeat in a sense

But even if we IGNORE his sheer knowledge

Which again i am unqualified to decide whether its intelligence or not.

His technique, plunger mastery and reading the question instead of waiting for Alex?

Gawd damn.

But there HAS TO BE something

WE the audience can learn from ALL that, right?


Read more
That's about it
 

4 Dimensional

Rising Star
Platinum Member
We gotta break this down.

You know a lot about writing media tv movies entertainment

So does @ViCiouS

I grew up on comics

@4 Dimensional knows math and weather

And we intersect

But this guy has an absurd intersection

This guy knew hip hop from Rakim to Travis Scott.

AND geography, physics, European history, poetry and fashion, etc.

That is just...

Again i know a little about all that stuff

We SHOULD.

BUT his commitment to trivia is just obscene

Again i understand that the questions on the show do repeat in a sense

But even if we IGNORE his sheer knowledge

Which again i am unqualified to decide whether its intelligence or not.

His technique, plunger mastery and reading the question instead of waiting for Alex?

Gawd damn.

But there HAS TO BE something

WE the audience can learn from ALL that, right?

There is a huge difference in knowing facts by memorization versus having an in-depth understanding for particular concepts.

For example, the weather. There are several members on this board that can talk about weather with me with no issue. They have a very basic understanding of meteorology. Where we differ is that I studied atmospheric science, which is the physics and mathematics based on proofs. I can show equations that are associated with hurricanes that aids in numerical weather prediction. Not only show those equations, but derive, solve and program them. This means I have a very deep conceptual understanding that only means something to scientist and not the general populace.

He has a great memory and advance ability to recall information. However, there are areas where he lacks deep understanding.

Knowing Rakim isn’t as impressive to me as knowing Boot Camp Click and all their members. Boot Camp is deep hip-hop. Masta Ace is deep hip-hop.

This is the type of guy that could probably score perfectly on the SAT or GRE. Where people really get tested is concepts and understanding more than what’s on the surface.

He can memorize every part in a car, but could he design an engine?

I’m dont know dude outside of jeopardy so I don’t know his full abilities.
 
Last edited:

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
There is a huge difference in knowing facts by memorization versus having an in-depth understanding for particular concepts.

For example, the weather. There are several members on this board that can talk about weather with me with no issue. They have a very basic understanding of meteorology. Where we differ is that I studied atmospheric science, which is the physics and mathematics based on proofs. I can show equations that are associated with hurricanes that aids in numerical weather prediction. Not only show those equations, but derive, solve and program them. This means I have a very deep conceptual understanding that only means something to scientist and not the general populace.

He has a great memory and advance ability to recall information. However, there are areas where he lacks deep understanding.

Knowing Rakim isn’t as impressive to me as knowing Boot Camp Click and all their members. Boot Camp is deep hip-hop. Masta Ace is deep hip-hop.

This is the type of guy that could probably score perfectly on the SAT or GRE. Where people really get tested is concepts and understanding more than what’s on the surface.

He can memorize every part in a car, but could he design an engine?

I’m dont know dude outside of jeopardy so I don’t know his full abilities.

Are you surprised he was a C student in school?
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Not at all. Grades really doesn’t measure level of achievement.

I scored an 820 on my SAT and 580 on my GRE. Both on a scale of 1600. I bombed them shits.

I should have pm you this...

The principal has encouraged us to apply for prep school programs for our oldest

Competitive as hell.

I KNOW she smart but 2 things. Personally i don't see she is as "exceptional" as everyone always says she is.

She my baby of course to me she is brilliant

But damn she dies some dumb stuff

I realizw she aint even in middle school yet

But at the same time she legitimately blows me away.

Its like i feel under qualified to parent her at times.

She will do amazing stuff like learn to play lead steel pan in less than 2 weeks because the other kid got scared and pulled out. Her instructor sent me the vid.

This is the same kid who doesn't understand how to properly utilize a hamper.

She did so well in her coding class the regional director came to see her final project which she had to redo from scratch cause someone messed with the pcs during the break.

Again this child almost burned down the house with a toaster strudel.

She writes comics, reads 3 books at a time including novels and coding manuals, and is now studing AI on her own.

But says the most ridiculous things that make bang my head against the wall.

Makes homemade slime and saves it in her brand new leather jacket pocket

But then figures the entire twist of "the good place" in half the 1st episode.

So I'm hesitant to put her in a very highly competitive program that is intenstive with online and in class work in ADDITION to her regular school work and which steers parents to place kids in mostly boarding schools where she would be like the only black girl.

Basically I'm asking how do i juggle academic achievement, common sense, and maturity.

I don't know exactly what kind of "smart" she is.

And she just took an SSAT without studying (she had 2 state exams and an oral report for the prinipal the same time frame) and got in the upper 70% percentile

Which i thought was bad but now they saying is good?
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
I should have pm you this...

The principal has encouraged us to apply for prep school programs for our oldest

Competitive as hell.

I KNOW she smart but 2 things. Personally i don't see she is as "exceptional" as everyone always says she is.

She my baby of course to me she is brilliant

But damn she dies some dumb stuff

I realizw she aint even in middle school yet

But at the same time she legitimately blows me away.

Its like i feel under qualified to parent her at times.

She will do amazing stuff like learn to play lead steel pan in less than 2 weeks because the other kid got scared and pulled out. Her instructor sent me the vid.

This is the same kid who doesn't understand how to properly utilize a hamper.

She did so well in her coding class the regional director came to see her final project which she had to redo from scratch cause someone messed with the pcs during the break.

Again this child almost burned down the house with a toaster strudel.

She writes comics, reads 3 books at a time including novels and coding manuals, and is now studing AI on her own.

But says the most ridiculous things that make bang my head against the wall.

Makes homemade slime and saves it in her brand new leather jacket pocket

But then figures the entire twist of "the good place" in half the 1st episode.

So I'm hesitant to put her in a very highly competitive program that is intenstive with online and in class work in ADDITION to her regular school work and which steers parents to place kids in mostly boarding schools where she would be like the only black girl.

Basically I'm asking how do i juggle academic achievement, common sense, and maturity.

I don't know exactly what kind of "smart" she is.

And she just took an SSAT without studying (she had 2 state exams and an oral report for the prinipal the same time frame) and got in the upper 70% percentile

Which i thought was bad but now they saying is good?
What you described with your daughter is the same point i was making about holzhauer.

He was a math genius but a C student. what he excelled at and was interested in he blew out the water, what 'bored' him (for lack of a better way to put it) he did the bare minimum (which you can argue is still average.)

Often times we want genius to be perfectly well rounded and balanced with ALL studies and activities, but that is what can cause a psychological break. In a genius mind, in theory, such balance turns toward a goal of perfection which is unattainable in real world living.

Your daughter has aspects she excells in and you are proud of her for them, but you see the lack or misgivings in her behavior that you would like to eliminate. Sometimes those percieved lack or misgivings are what enables the genius.

There is a good thread on schooling found here

https://www.bgol.us/forum/threads/deep-message-to-the-school-system.916231/

some relevent gems from that thread


main-qimg-331a11757673445beea4169be78fa458-c





1924616_708448689197653_496415217_n.jpg





60165935_2280605385357578_7987631025771511808_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

TENT

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
The Earth revolves/orbits the sun in an elliptical pattern
The Earth rotates on its own access.

Rotation
220px-Earth_rotation.gif


Its fruitless

that is the whole thing

they CANNOT ADMIT ACCEPT when they are wrong

even when faced with MOUNTAINS of PROVEN fact...

they would rather delete their account

slink away wit till your GONE and get right back to spewing nonsense

or try to find some type of "middle ground?

"Well yes you are right the Earth rotates AROUND the sun but can we agree that if all planets are moving that the Earth is KINDA at the center of the universe?"
 

darth frosty

Dark Lord of the Sith
BGOL Investor
Something I read on quora


Why do some intelligent people fail to achieve their potential?



Mark L. Levinson, Freelance translator (mostly Hebrew to English) (1977-present)

Answered Jun 21 · Upvoted by Karen Albeck, M.A. (PhD abd) Physiological Psychology and Psycholinguistics & Philosophy, Lehigh University




Originally Answered: What usually stops a highly intelligent person from achieving his/her full potential?



I talked to a woman who ran a school for gifted children, and she said one big problem is that the highly intelligent kids (unless they’re in a school like hers) don’t get much gratification out of talking and playing with the kids around them, so they get their gratification from the approval of older people— parents and teachers. Then when they go out into the world themselves as adults, they don’t find it easy to connect to their contemporaries and win their support; they haven’t developed the appropriate social skills.
___________________






A genius, an average man and an uneducated man walk into a bar.



They talk about life, they talk about death. They discuss making money, they talk about family.



The average man has big ideas. He wants to change the world. The uneducated man wants to be happy. He wants to start a family and live a simple life.



But the genius, he can achieve. He can create, he can lead, he can contribute to society. He thinks on a greater level than us, and has a mind racing all the time.



But, does he want to?



Intelligent people and geniuses have no obligation to serve the society they were born in. Just as any person has the potential to become anything, a genius may find it way easier to achieve that potential. But what do they want?



Who are we to tell them what their potential is in life? How do we judge their successes and failures as a loss of potential?



If they are smart, intelligent, and driven to change the world, that is fine. Some geniuses don't want to do that however. They may just want simple lives. They may want a steady track, a simple goal.



Expectations play a huge role in intelligent people's lives. They are expected to make the most of their ability to achieve, innovate, create, etc. As if it was their purpose in life.



When we put such responsibility on someone with a greater ability than ours, it's like a case of noblesse oblige: we can, therefore we must.



Maybe, some of them do not want.



Why do some intelligent people fail to reach their potential?



Because they have a life to live, and no obligation to live for anyone else.



___________________________________________________________________________________-


There several kinds of intelligent people.

Type1

If they do not find proper and enough social feedback and change when wrong, they will become idealistic, sensitive, irresolute and disconnected rather than insightful, sympathetic, reasonable and pragmatic.

And they need pay extra efforts on interpreting situations and relationships

They can misguide themselves and others when organizing more efficient operations. Under stress they tend to spend unnecessary time establishing order.

main-qimg-9b018f8f7e77d83e8b8379641a8fe7da




Type2

If they do not know how to fix failing behavior and let morals inform action, they will become idealistic, stringent, peevish and disconnected rather than insightful, competent, caring and pragmatic.

And they need pay extra efforts on interpreting situations and relationships

They usually disregard others' opinions, valuing their independence. under stress they may be deceived into over-addressing others' concerns and disappointed by a false sense of closeness.

main-qimg-89f4ed8b7b02c5db4ebdb425a778b9f9






Type 3

If they fail to find deeper truth and have objective action, they will become tenacious, unnuanced, reactive, unreflective rather than factual, introspective, adaptable and tactful.

And they need pay extra efforts on analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model.

They can cling to what they are used to. Under stress they tend to fret about insecurity and be deceived by false promise of predictability.

main-qimg-5ba11fdde04da70a1edaaf494a0d96e4




Type 4

If they fail to find new ideas and have right implementation, they will become critical, speculative, nitpicky and indifferent rather than systematic precise, imaginative, detailed and helpful.

And they need pay extra efforts on segmenting and organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; structuring

They can fool themselves and others by a misguided focus on the perceived "realities" of a situation. Under stress they tend to be deceived into taking impulsive action.

main-qimg-465c6aa05e6b25675f6436795879286e


Type 5

If they fail to find deeper truth and have objective action, they will become accommodating, unnuanced, reactive, naive rather than generous, introspective, adaptable and judicious.

And they need pay extra efforts on valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity

They can cling to what they are used to. Under stress they tend to fret about insecurity and be deceived by false promise of predictability.

main-qimg-322f405cfaa6f18e2501a0865d69f7e7


Type 6

If they fail to explore and learn and have better life direction, they will become critical, evasive, simplistic and indifferent rather than systematic precise, easygoing, inquisitive and helpful.

And they need pay extra efforts on valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity

They usually ignore subtleties and nuances not tied to real data. Under stress they tend to be deceived into interpreting situations in a very idiosyncratic way, attributing ill intent where there is none.

main-qimg-080764b39b896bb17d8328d4b7eea7ed


And there more intelligent kinds of people.

Culture, race, sexual orientation and social economic classes will all influence these different processes of mentally growing.

How to solve? Classify people from their potential abilities.

(this system is complicated, involve (4x4)x(9x2)=288 kinds of different people)

The above I just introduce you with the 6 in 4x4 in the simplest descriptions.



And for

main-qimg-7f6386b3e80af2933020856860670ecc


They are not lazy or not. They just do not know how to effectively run for organization. But only type 4 have the possibility to be systematic precise and imaginative at the same time.

main-qimg-aff78eccc13efe62fb17cbd2f02d3d55


And factual but repressed type 3 can be deceived by false promise of predictability under stress. So they just keep blocking type 4. I don’t care whether type 3s are stressed or not.

main-qimg-77882e6f8418f7b3d5b059f07dd363d3



















_________________
thumbnail


A few decades ago, most people believed that there was a simple formula to success; the higher your IQ, the more successful you were. This turned out to be wrong. Further studies discovered numerous factors that predicted success, including willpower and emotional intelligence (EQ). These other factors are still under-emphasized to this day.

Here are 10 reasons why intelligent people underperform:

1. They Over-Analyze

Intelligence actually works as a stumbling block for social interactions. The smarter you are, the more capable you are to over-prepare and over-analyze. Dumb people actually have an advantage because they aren’t even aware of the consequences.

They just go in and talk to people. This lets them stay relaxed and confident, which improve their results. So how do you solve this? Take one piece of social skills advice at a time. Focus on just improving executing on it because it avoids information overwhelm.

“We are dying from overthinking. We are slowly killing ourselves by thinking about everything. Think. Think. Think. You can never trust the human mind anyway. It’s a death trap.” – Anthony Hopkins

2. They Rely Too Much On Intelligence

Many smart people end up using their intelligence as a crutch. They reason, “I will just get smarter rather than work on my weaknesses.” While it’s sometimes better to double down on your strengths, avoiding glaring weaknesses can keep you from improving.

For example, you can end up never improving your social skills. This leads to severely off-putting lack of social intelligence that destroys earning opportunities. This is a mistake because no matter what job you have, you will be interacting with people.

3. They Have An Ego

Have you ever heard someone say a certain sport is the best just because they play it? Similarly, you can defend intelligence as the only key to success simply because it’s all you have. Yet many people are smart and not rich. How come?

Ego overpowers reality. Realize that other factors, like willpower, fitness, and EQ are worth improving. Find someone who is just like you. What advice you would give him? I did this with a man who clearly needed to go to the gym. It turns out I need to do the same.

4. They Put Theory Over Practice

Book smarts are great, but the real word is different. In the book Willpower Instinct, the author, a Stanford professor, discovered that her scientific theories didn’t always work in practice with students. Over time, she discovered factors that the scientific process hadn’t accounted for, which allowed her to shape her teachings better.

5. They’re Scared of Change

The world’s top CEOs have expressed the importance of embracing change. This includes Sam Walton, founder of Walmart, Jack Welch, CEO of GE, and Charles Koch, founder of Koch Industries.

Change is important because if you don’t keep innovating, your competitors will catch up with you. You always have to stay vigilant. Most of us grew up in a risk-averse culture. Rather than taking calculated risks that are worth it, they avoid all risks.

6. They Avoid Mistakes

The psychologist and world-famous TED speaker, Carol Dweck, wrote a book recommended by Bill Gates called Mindset: the Psychology of Success.

In the book, she discovered that unsuccessful people had something called a fixed mindset. These people believed that they could never improve and didn’t see mistakes as learning lessons. Do the opposite and you’ll start winning.

7. They Have an Entitlement Attitude

A top pattern I’ve seen among high achievers is that they never complain and never act like they deserve anything. They work for it. Among average people, the opposite is true. They feel entitled to all sorts of things from food to shelter to tuition.

Try to not complain about anything for 7 days. Ask yourself “How can I get this?” instead of just thinking, “I can’t get this.”

8. They’re Tempted By Too Many Goals

In the modern world, there are plenty of shiny objects to chase after. You can fear missing out on something if you have to focus on something else. But this is wrong.

Here’s a story to illustrate. Once upon a time, there was a donkey. He couldn’t decide whether to eat some hay or drink some water. He was stuck in the middle between them, paralyzed with what to do. He ended up starving to death.

If he had just focused on going to one first, he would have found that he had plenty of time later to go to the other one. You must do the same in life. Focus on one thing for a few years. You have decades to spend.

“To succeed in your mission, you must have single-minded devotion to your goal.” – A.P.J Abdul Kalam

9. They Lack Emotional Intelligence (EQ)

One of the key discoveries of the recent century was EQ. It doesn’t have to do with numbers and math. It’s about how well you can recognize the emotions of others (and yourself) to better navigate situations.

What’s great about EQ is that it is learnable, unlike IQ. Even to this day, EQ is swept under the rug. Most people don’t bother to improve it and fail to achieve their potential in the areas EQ impacts, like wealth and relationships.

10. They Lack Social Intelligence

Similar to EQ, social intelligence is about effectively navigating social interactions and conversation. IQ is still over-emphasized in the modern world and social intelligence is just acknowledged as something that is there, which can’t be improved.

But the opposite is true. Social intelligence is critical to most of our lives. We are navigating with people all the time. This doesn’t mean that you have to become an extrovert. There are socially skilled introverts as well as shy extroverts.

You can improve it. Put yourself in more social situations in your career or free time. Join an improv class or get a job with more social interactions, like a salesman or waiter. Reflect on how you could have done better everyday and you will improve over time.
 
Last edited:

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Good example on being followers.

However, I’d like to think people are somewhat smarter than monkeys.

For me though, the meme represents more of power versus what the monkeys are doing.

The power to control the ice water, the banana, the ladder.[/QUOTE]

BOOM~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
@4 Dimensional here is a post REFUTING it...

the COMMENTS are also interesting...

http://www.throwcase.com/2014/12/21/that-five-monkeys-and-a-banana-story-is-rubbish/

That “Five Monkeys Experiment” Never Happened
BY THROWCASE · PUBLISHED DECEMBER 21, 2014 · UPDATED DECEMBER 29, 2016

monkeys-e1419187612146.jpg


You may have seen this story about the Five Monkeys Experiment recently:



Apparently it is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called Competing For The Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

(I got some of this information from an internet chatroom, posted by a guy called BlueRaja. If you would like to check up on what I have said, you can do that.)

The article has gained popularity recently because it appeared in a TED Talk by some guy called Eddie Obeng,* showing once again that TED Talks are responsible for the spread of intellectual garbage and superficially appealing, hyperbolic misinformation. A blogger by the name of John Stepper writes about how amazing the Talk was and how Eddie was able to bring this untrue story to life. He then asks if it really happened, and says:

“A quick search reveals it did happen though the details are quite different.”

This is perfectly true, if by “quite different” he really means “not the same at all, in any way.”

ted-rhet.jpg


Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966). The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all. They may as well have provided this as a source:


Did Stephenson put five monkeys in a room and spray them with water if they climbed up a ladder to reach a banana? Of course not.



As you can see, the experiment is different in just a couple of minor ways:

  • Stephenson wanted to know if a learned behaviour in one monkey could induce a lasting effect on a second monkey. He was not making a study of group dynamics or herd behaviour at all.
  • He examined four sets of unisexual monkey pairs, not five random monkeys in a group.
  • The objects he used were plastic kitchen utensils, not a banana.
  • The type of punishment was an air blast, not a water blast.
  • There was no ladder- the object was just placed at one end of a controlled area.
To summarise, nothing about this real experiment is the same as the story. Nothing at all.

And what were the actual results of this barely relevant, totally different experiment?



Oops…

So in some pairs the new ‘naive’ monkey did learn to fear the object after seeing how the conditioned monkey was afraid of it. However, in other pairs, the fearless behaviour of the naive monkey ended up teaching the conditioned one not to fear the object anymore. Note that this is exactly the wrong type of evidence for a charming story about “following the herd”.

computer.jpg


Curiously, the results were gender-specific: in three male-paired cases the learned behaviour was transferred, in three female-paired cases it was not, and in two it was inconclusive. The female monkeys seemed to learn behaviours simply by observation (including cases in which the punished monkey learned that there would be no more air blasts by watching the new monkey play with the object). The male pairs behaved differently, tending to teach a behaviour physically. The punished monkey actively admonished the newer one by pulling them away from the object.

The interesting part of the study therefore comes from the gender differences, but even then Stephenson shies away from making any conclusions from his data. This is the sort of thing a scientist says, because science is about real things.



The sample size is small and no bullshit should be inferred.

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true.



facebook-logo-thumbs-up.png


It’s one thing to share a meme because it sounds cool. We have all done it, myself included, even though it is a truly terrible misuse of our intelligence and most of us would not want our children to be mindlessly repeating hearsay and gossip because it sounds cool.

However, I can’t help but wonder how a blogger like John Stepper can be so smitten by the power of rhetoric that after hearing this implausible story about five monkeys he tries to validate it by referring to an unrelated study, and decides that “the details are a bit different.” No John, the details are not a bit different, they are so different that it makes your “evidence” irrelevant. Without evidence, you are just helping to spread misinformation. Please, please use your brain.

In fact, everybody, please stop sharing articles like this. It doesn’t take long to find out if something is true. This is one of the things our years of secondary (and perhaps tertiary) education were supposed to teach us: think before you follow!

Now, if only there was a cool story about some scientific-sounding thing I could quote to give my rant a bit more substance…

*UPDATE: As Eddie Obeng points out in the comments below, I was incorrect in saying that he delivered this story at a TED Talk. He definitely did not use cutesy projected graphics to relay uplifting platitudes to an audience of gullible twats at a TED event- he did it at JiveWorld instead, which is probably completely different.

He also insists it is a fable, not a story about a real experiment. This is probably why he introduces it as “an experiment I came across; apparently a group of researchers were looking at behaviour. What they did was, they got five monkeys…”

Please share!
 

4 Dimensional

Rising Star
Platinum Member
@4 Dimensional here is a post REFUTING it...

the COMMENTS are also interesting...

http://www.throwcase.com/2014/12/21/that-five-monkeys-and-a-banana-story-is-rubbish/

That “Five Monkeys Experiment” Never Happened
BY THROWCASE · PUBLISHED DECEMBER 21, 2014 · UPDATED DECEMBER 29, 2016

monkeys-e1419187612146.jpg


You may have seen this story about the Five Monkeys Experiment recently:



Apparently it is supposed to describe a real scientific experiment that was performed on a group of monkeys, and it is supposed to raise profound questions about our tendency to unquestioningly follow the herd. Unfortunately it is complete and utter nonsense, because no such experiment ever happened.

Ironically, so many people are sharing this unverified pseudoscientific gibberish that it really does reveal our tendency to unthinkingly follow the herd; after all, why would you bother verifying an article about monkeys that literally has the tag line “think before you follow”?

This story has been doing the rounds since 1996, and it has never been verified. It seems to have first appeared in a book called Competing For The Future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad, and by “appeared” I mean it was just made up. The authors never provided a source. None of the authors who have referred to the experiment in the past eighteen years have provided a source either. None of the appealing memes or infographics that describe the story now provide a source. Suffice to say, there is no source, because the experiment never happened.

(I got some of this information from an internet chatroom, posted by a guy called BlueRaja. If you would like to check up on what I have said, you can do that.)

The article has gained popularity recently because it appeared in a TED Talk by some guy called Eddie Obeng,* showing once again that TED Talks are responsible for the spread of intellectual garbage and superficially appealing, hyperbolic misinformation. A blogger by the name of John Stepper writes about how amazing the Talk was and how Eddie was able to bring this untrue story to life. He then asks if it really happened, and says:

“A quick search reveals it did happen though the details are quite different.”

This is perfectly true, if by “quite different” he really means “not the same at all, in any way.”

ted-rhet.jpg


Stepper’s “proof” that it happened “a little differently” is an article by G.R. Stephenson called Cultural Acquisition Of A Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys (1966). The very existence of a scientific-sounding source seems to be enough to lend this ‘experiment’ some credibility (it’s got a big name and a date and everything) but all you need to do is read the experiment yourself to see that it has absolutely nothing to do with this ‘fable’ at all. They may as well have provided this as a source:


Did Stephenson put five monkeys in a room and spray them with water if they climbed up a ladder to reach a banana? Of course not.



As you can see, the experiment is different in just a couple of minor ways:

  • Stephenson wanted to know if a learned behaviour in one monkey could induce a lasting effect on a second monkey. He was not making a study of group dynamics or herd behaviour at all.
  • He examined four sets of unisexual monkey pairs, not five random monkeys in a group.
  • The objects he used were plastic kitchen utensils, not a banana.
  • The type of punishment was an air blast, not a water blast.
  • There was no ladder- the object was just placed at one end of a controlled area.
To summarise, nothing about this real experiment is the same as the story. Nothing at all.

And what were the actual results of this barely relevant, totally different experiment?



Oops…

So in some pairs the new ‘naive’ monkey did learn to fear the object after seeing how the conditioned monkey was afraid of it. However, in other pairs, the fearless behaviour of the naive monkey ended up teaching the conditioned one not to fear the object anymore. Note that this is exactly the wrong type of evidence for a charming story about “following the herd”.

computer.jpg


Curiously, the results were gender-specific: in three male-paired cases the learned behaviour was transferred, in three female-paired cases it was not, and in two it was inconclusive. The female monkeys seemed to learn behaviours simply by observation (including cases in which the punished monkey learned that there would be no more air blasts by watching the new monkey play with the object). The male pairs behaved differently, tending to teach a behaviour physically. The punished monkey actively admonished the newer one by pulling them away from the object.

The interesting part of the study therefore comes from the gender differences, but even then Stephenson shies away from making any conclusions from his data. This is the sort of thing a scientist says, because science is about real things.



The sample size is small and no bullshit should be inferred.

Unfortunately, a few decades after this study was published some moronic self-help author read it and thought “it’s almost good, but if I make it much more sensational and implausible, I will sell a lot of books! Though I don’t have any real truths, I can help people by showing them essential truths I’ve just made up!” And then you read it on Facebook, and thousands of people shared it, believing it to be true.



facebook-logo-thumbs-up.png


It’s one thing to share a meme because it sounds cool. We have all done it, myself included, even though it is a truly terrible misuse of our intelligence and most of us would not want our children to be mindlessly repeating hearsay and gossip because it sounds cool.

However, I can’t help but wonder how a blogger like John Stepper can be so smitten by the power of rhetoric that after hearing this implausible story about five monkeys he tries to validate it by referring to an unrelated study, and decides that “the details are a bit different.” No John, the details are not a bit different, they are so different that it makes your “evidence” irrelevant. Without evidence, you are just helping to spread misinformation. Please, please use your brain.

In fact, everybody, please stop sharing articles like this. It doesn’t take long to find out if something is true. This is one of the things our years of secondary (and perhaps tertiary) education were supposed to teach us: think before you follow!

Now, if only there was a cool story about some scientific-sounding thing I could quote to give my rant a bit more substance…

*UPDATE: As Eddie Obeng points out in the comments below, I was incorrect in saying that he delivered this story at a TED Talk. He definitely did not use cutesy projected graphics to relay uplifting platitudes to an audience of gullible twats at a TED event- he did it at JiveWorld instead, which is probably completely different.

He also insists it is a fable, not a story about a real experiment. This is probably why he introduces it as “an experiment I came across; apparently a group of researchers were looking at behaviour. What they did was, they got five monkeys…”

Please share!

Even if the experiment isn’t true, the herd mentality of the human is no different than animals in nature.

It’s no different when you see a group of people running and you don’t know why. You going to run or wait and see why they are running?

Humans naturally follow.
 

BigDaddyBuk

still not dizzy.
Platinum Member
Even if the experiment isn’t true, the herd mentality of the human is no different than animals in nature.

It’s no different when you see a group of people running and you don’t know why. You going to run or wait and see why they are running?

Humans naturally follow.
I dont run.

Which is why people elect me to lead when I dont know I am nominated.

I think fear is the biggest obstacle in these situations. It's also the reason we put Trumps in leadership positions.
 

4 Dimensional

Rising Star
Platinum Member
I dont run.

Which is why people elect me to lead when I dont know I am nominated.

I think fear is the biggest obstacle in these situations. It's also the reason we put Trumps in leadership positions.

Fear of many things.

I’m the same way. Sometimes I want to follow because leading comes with pressure.

As a leader, people can place blame on YOU for THIER shortcomings. This taking the responsibility away from themselves. I think that’s what we see today in a much higher capacity in comparison to other eras.
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Even if the experiment isn’t true, the herd mentality of the human is no different than animals in nature.

It’s no different when you see a group of people running and you don’t know why. You going to run or wait and see why they are running?

Humans naturally follow.

Isn't interesting...

the pseudo internet intellectuals

would climb all over themselves to DEBUNK something that was NEVER supposed to taken LITERALLY?

As if...

someone HAD TO ACTUALLY perform this (thought) experiment for it to have any VALUE?

That says even MORE about the depths our society has plunged into.

So even something POSITIVE has to be dissected into into a negative.

I swear decades from now I think social media will be the culprit is actually PERMANENTLY ALTERING the human condition for the worse.

sidebar..

Would THIS whole topic not make a dope podcast?
 

4 Dimensional

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Isn't interesting...

the pseudo internet intellectuals

would climb all over themselves to DEBUNK something that was NEVER supposed to taken LITERALLY?

As if...

someone HAD TO ACTUALLY perform this (thought) experiment for it to have any VALUE?

That says even MORE about the depths our society has plunged into.

So even something POSITIVE has to be dissected into into a negative.

I swear decades from now I think social media will be the culprit is actually PERMANENTLY ALTERING the human condition for the worse.

sidebar..

Would THIS whole topic not make a dope podcast?

My colleague and I was discussing something similarly earlier.

The humans greatest strength (our minds) is also our biggest shortcomings. We can take our imaginations and turn it into some type of truth if you get enough people to agree. Hell, you only need two people to agree on something for it to become true. May not be true to others, but it would be true to the two that agreed.

Definitely would make a dope podcast.
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
I dont run.

Which is why people elect me to lead when I dont know I am nominated.

I think fear is the biggest obstacle in these situations. It's also the reason we put Trumps in leadership positions.

The reluctant leader to me is almost always best.

I think the "group" knows who really SHOULD lead.

and your Trump point is key

I also think people KNOW who they WANT to lead for mostly self preservation reasons.
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/

Dopamine, Smartphones & You: A battle for your time


by Trevor Haynesfigures by Rebecca Clements

“I feel tremendous guilt,” admitted Chamath Palihapitiya, former Vice President of User Growth at Facebook, to an audience of Stanford students. He was responding to a question about his involvement in exploiting consumer behavior. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works,” he explained. In Palihapitiya’s talk, he highlighted something most of us know but few really appreciate: smartphones and the social media platforms they support are turning us into bona fide addicts. While it’s easy to dismiss this claim as hyperbole, platforms like Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram leverage the very same neural circuitry used by slot machines and cocaine to keep us using their products as much as possible. Taking a closer look at the underlying science may give you pause the next time you feel your pocket buzz.

Never Alone
If you’ve ever misplaced your phone, you may have experienced a mild state of panic until it’s been found. About 73% of people claim to experience this unique flavor of anxiety, which makes sense when you consider that adults in the US spend an average of 2-4 hours per day tapping, typing, and swiping on their devices—that adds up to over 2,600 daily touches. Most of us have become so intimately entwined with our digital lives that we sometimes feel our phones vibrating in our pockets when they aren’t even there.

While there is nothing inherently addictive about smartphones themselves, the true drivers of our attachments to these devices are the hyper-social environments they provide. Thanks to the likes of Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and others, smartphones allow us to carry immense social environments in our pockets through every waking moment of our lives. Though humans have evolved to be social—a key feature to our success as a species—the social structures in which we thrive tend to contain about 150 individuals. This number is orders of magnitude smaller than the 2 billion potential connections we carry around in our pockets today. There is no doubt that smartphones provide immense benefit to society, but their cost is becoming more and more apparent. Studies are beginning to show links between smartphone usage and increased levels of anxiety and depression, poor sleep quality, and increased risk of car injury or death. Many of us wish we spent less time on our phones but find it incredibly difficult to disconnect. Why are our smartphones so hard to ignore?

The Levers in Our Brains – Dopamine and social reward
Dopamine is a chemical produced by our brains that plays a starring role in motivating behavior. It gets released when we take a bite of delicious food, when we have sex, after we exercise, and, importantly, when we have successful social interactions. In an evolutionary context, it rewards us for beneficial behaviors and motivates us to repeat them.

The human brain contains four major dopamine “pathways,” or connections between different parts of the brain that act as highways for chemical messages called neurotransmitters. Each pathway has its own associated cognitive and motor (movement) processes. Three of these pathways—the mesocortical, mesolimbic, and nigrostriatal pathways—are considered our “reward pathways” and have been shown to be dysfunctional in most cases of addiction. They are responsible for the release of dopamine in various parts of the brain, which shapes the activity of those areas. The fourth, the tuberoinfundibular pathway, regulates the release of a hormone called prolactin that is required for milk production.


Figure 1: Three dopamine pathways and their related cognitive processes. Most of your dopamine is generated deep in the midbrain, and it is released in many different areas across the brain. These areas are largely responsible for behaviors associated with learning, habit formation, and addiction.
While the reward pathways (Figure 1) are distinct in their anatomical organization, all three become active when anticipating or experiencing rewarding events. In particular, they reinforce the association between a particular stimulus or sequence of behaviors and the feel-good reward that follows. Every time a response to a stimulus results in a reward, these associations become stronger through a process called long-term potentiation. This process strengthens frequently used connections between brain cells called neurons by increasing the intensity at which they respond to particular stimuli.

Although not as intense as hit of cocaine, positive social stimuli will similarly result in a release of dopamine, reinforcing whatever behavior preceded it. Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that rewarding social stimuli—laughing faces, positive recognition by our peers, messages from loved ones—activate the same dopaminergic reward pathways. Smartphones have provided us with a virtually unlimited supply of social stimuli, both positive and negative. Every notification, whether it’s a text message, a “like” on Instagram, or a Facebook notification, has the potential to be a positive social stimulus and dopamine influx.

The Hands that Pull – Reward prediction errors and variable reward schedules
Because most social media platforms are free, they rely on revenue from advertisers to make a profit. This system works for everyone involved at first glance, but it has created an arms race for your attention and time. Ultimately, the winners of this arms race will be those who best use their product to exploit the features of the brain’s reward systems.

Reward prediction errors
Research in reward learning and addiction have recently focused on a feature of our dopamine neurons called reward prediction error (RPE) encoding. These prediction errors serve as dopamine-mediated feedback signals in our brains (Figure 2). This neurological feature is something casino owners have used to their advantage for years. If you’ve ever played slots, you’ll have experienced the intense anticipation while those wheels are turning—the moments between the lever pull and the outcome provide time for our dopamine neurons to increase their activity, creating a rewarding feeling just by playing the game. It would be no fun otherwise. But as negative outcomes accumulate, the loss of dopamine activity encourages us to disengage. Thus, a balance between positive and negative outcomes must be maintained in order to keep our brains engaged.


Figure 2: Reward prediction and subsequent dopamine activity.Unexpected rewards increase the activity of dopamine neurons, acting as positive feedback signals for the brain regions associated with the preceding behavior. As learning takes place, the timing of activity will shift until it occurs upon the cue alone, with the expected reward having no additional effect. And should the expected reward not be received, dopamine activity drops, sending a negative feedback signal to the relevant parts of the brain, weakening the positive association.
Variable reward schedules
How do social media apps take advantage of this dopamine-driven learning strategy? Similar to slot machines, many apps implement a reward pattern optimized to keep you engaged as much as possible. Variable reward schedules were introduced by psychologist B.F. Skinner in the 1930’s. In his experiments, he found that mice respond most frequently to reward-associated stimuli when the reward was administered after a varying number of responses, precluding the animal’s ability to predict when they would be rewarded. Humans are no different; if we perceive a reward to be delivered at random, and if checking for the reward comes at little cost, we end up checking habitually (e.g. gambling addiction). If you pay attention, you might find yourself checking your phone at the slightest feeling of boredom, purely out of habit. Programmers work very hard behind the screens to keep you doing exactly that.

The Battle for Your Time
If you’ve been a Facebook user for more than a few years, you’ve probably noticed that the site has been expanding its criteria for notifications. When you first join Facebook, your notification center revolves around the initial set of connections you make, creating that crucial link between notification and social reward. But as you use Facebook more and begin interacting with various groups, events, and artists, that notification center will also become more active. After a while, you’ll be able to open the app at any time and reasonably expect to be rewarded. When paired with the low cost of checking your phone, you have a pretty strong incentive to check in whenever you can.

Other examples highlight a more deliberate effort to monopolize your time. Consider Instagram’s implementation of a variable-ratio reward schedule. As explained in this 60 Minutes interview, Instagram’s notification algorithms will sometimes withhold “likes” on your photos to deliver them in larger bursts. So when you make your post, you may be disappointed to find less responses than you expected, only to receive them in a larger bunch later on. Your dopamine centers have been primed by those initial negative outcomes to respond robustly to the sudden influx of social appraisal. This use of a variable reward schedule takes advantage of our dopamine-driven desire for social validation, and it optimizes the balance of negative and positive feedback signals until we’ve become habitual users.

Question Your Habits
Smartphones and social media apps aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, so it is up to us as the users to decide how much of our time we want to dedicate to them. Unless the advertisement-based profit model changes, companies like Facebook will continue to do everything they can to keep your eyes glued to the screen as often as possible. And by using algorithms to leverage our dopamine-driven reward circuitry, they stack the cards—and our brains—against us. But if you want to spend less time on your phone, there are a variety strategies to achieve success. Doing things like disabling your notifications for social media apps and keeping your display in black and white will reduce your phone’s ability to grab and hold your attention. Above all, mindful use of the technology is the best tool you have. So the next time you pick up your phone to check Facebook, you might ask yourself, “Is this really worth my time?”
 

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
@4 Dimensional @ViCiouS @largebillsonlyplease



see these savages booing...

even though I am SURE its a majority if not ENTIRELY white folk..

who PAID to sit for NEARLY 4 HOURS to do that

this is a PERFECT microcosm of sports fans...

and their HATRED for NOT only the Black athlete but all athletes.

That is why Trump does and STILL resonates with them.

and as much as educated people KNOW Twitter is such a damn TINY pool of ACTUAL people?

These Luck hate tweets aint mostly bots..

that is REAL LIVE Americans spouting this dumb sh*t

and we CANNOT just brush that aside.

these are the SAME people who don't UNDERSTAND kneeling during the anthem

when someone tells you WHO and WHAT they really are?

We NEED to believe them.
 

4 Dimensional

Rising Star
Platinum Member


This kinda stuff fascinates me...

@largebillsonlyplease @ViCiouS @fonzerrillii @4 Dimensional

When and how did rotten tomatoes become the be all end all of movie reviews?


I have no idea.

I have seen ratings on movies that were high, but the comments did not reflect the ratings.

I don’t mind movie reviews, but as I have found out through my site, film is like food to people.

Hell, “Sugar Hill” with Wesley Snipes got a 5.9 on IMBb and I think that film is at least a high 6 or low 7. I don’t know when Rotten Tomatoes came on the scene.
 
Top