81–87 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In order to empathize it requires a mental model of how someone else thinks/feels.
It is typically called theory of mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh? (P(X|Y)>P(X) iff P(Y|X)>P(Y)) whenever all the relevant probabilities (P(X), P(Y), P(X and Y), etc.) are strictly positive and strictly less than 1. Now, X might be much stronger evidence for Y than Y is for X, but if Y is evidence for X, then (assuming the previously mentioned assumption) then X is evidence for Y, even if only very weak.
Yes but the comment being responded to stated “but there are Y that are not X” which was categorical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
And even if a correlation was to be found on average, it doesn't really say anything about the individuals or median levels or many other nuances. 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 reas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not saying it is debatable, it is politely saying it is almost definitely wrong, but still popular.
Not proven ≠ Wrong It's true, a direct link hasn't been proven, and I was debating even mentioning that. Obviously that specific tendency alone isn't indicative of a homicidal individual. But I would speculate that it has something to do with dysfunction/dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system.
If a theory/hypothesis remains not proven once the science has been repeatedly done in numerous attempts to prove it, very often it does mean it is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not proven ≠ Wrong It's true, a direct link hasn't been proven, and I was debating even mentioning that. Obviously that specific tendency alone isn't indicative of a homicidal individual. But I would speculate that it has something to do with dysfunction/dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system.
Yes, but that is the absence of evidence, commonly called on when the science hasn't been done. If a theory/hypothesis remains not proven once the science has been repeatedly done in numerous attempts to prove it, very often it does mean it is wrong.
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.
Yes, but that is the absence of evidence, commonly called on when the science hasn't been done. If a theory/hypothesis remains not proven once the science has been repeatedly done in numerous attempts to prove it, very often it does mean it is wrong.
A mere two studies are cited in the Wikipedia quote you supplied as evidence of the supposed wrongness of the hypothesis.