61–70 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is dated and hasn’t been supported by more recent science.
Recent psychology has been suffering from the replication crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although it remains an influential and widely taught hypothesis, subsequent research has generally not validated this line of thinking.[3][4]
Yes, that is why I wrote, "debatably."
Your Spidey sense should tingle whenever you read about a psychology result in a popular medium. Especially if that result flatters you in some way.
I did a quick investigation into the three papers linked in the article. In the first, the correlation is between either spouse having donated “$500 or more to a religious or other non-profit” so it potentially loses a lot of smaller donors, but the biggest issue is their definition of a measure of cognitive ability is probably not what you think: > cognitive ability was measured in a variety of ways (Ofstedal et al.…
I worked with a guy who used to brag about having an IQ of 60. Dude wasn't much smarter than a rock, but he could follow directions really well. Pretty sure he could pass these tests too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same is true with being manipulative though.
Yes, but being manipulative will be discovered and punished in the long term. It's not a stable strategy, as it get riskier and riskier the more you do it. So you are naturally disincentivized from being manipulative. On the other hand, being generous will be recognized and rewarded in the long term. In the short term you carry some risk if you are generous with people you don't know. This is where having good social…
Your Spidey sense should tingle whenever you read about a psychology result in a popular medium. Especially if that result flatters you in some way.
I did a quick investigation into the three papers linked in the article. In the first, the correlation is between either spouse having donated “$500 or more to a religious or other non-profit” so it potentially loses a lot of smaller donors, but the biggest issue is their definition of a measure of cognitive ability is probably not what you think: > cognitive ability was measured in a variety of ways (Ofstedal et al.…
I think we can all agree on the base level that there are intelligent people who are kind, and there are intelligent people who are very not kind. And then there's intelligent people who are kind only for the reasons that it makes them succeed, not for pure altruistic reasons.
Not to mention if intelligent people are able to make more income and therefore have the capability to share a portion of it while less intelligent will try to get by and don't have time or resources to help others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is why I wrote, "debatably."
This is not saying it is debatable, it is politely saying it is almost definitely wrong, but still popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably most social species have this capability.
That is not the case at all. There's a guy on yt with a 'pet' coyote and it's fascinating how different it behaves to his dogs and how they interact.
1. Maximizing self interest using an understanding of social contract theory
2. A complex system of instincts that depends on others behavior, but doesn't manifest as intuition about the reasons for those behaviors
3. Like 2, but it manifests as an intuitive undestanding of how others may feel
I admit, 1 seems unlikely, even for humans. 2 and 3 sound more plausible, but 3 seems like the simpler explanation to me. We have an example case of it in humans (of course humans may additionally reason about others intent), and I'd expect similar tendencies to have similar mechanisms. Plus, grouping behaviors into intents reduces the number of rules needed for the observed behavior -> response mapping at the cost of some pattern recognition ability.
It's possible there's another explanation, including why similar tendencies aren't explained by similar mechanisms, despite the availability of similar "hardware". If there is, I'm not clever enough to have thought of it.