每日数据转储-星期四
RSS
搜寻文字 区分大小写 确切的词 包括评论
列表 书签
您准备好迎接一个没有抗生素的世界了吗？。取自一个 Lancet 纸。基于物理学的技术进步和基于生物学的技术进步之间的主要区别之一是，生物学的进步可能会被进化反应慢慢侵蚀。但我很好奇微生物学家如何看待抗生素在 10 年内不再有效的说法。
研究发现男性和女性家庭暴力施暴者具有相似的性格类型。当前的心理和社会病理学模型似乎假设 白板 环境投入一代又一代地传递。但可能存在可遗传的生物行为倾向。尽管通过不同的技术，人类可能会趋于相似的行为形态，但所有的人性都不相同。
由于经济衰退侵蚀房屋净值，债务增加且无法偿还。 一些 经济学家批评 the over-rationalization of human behavior encouraged by their profession. People who “walk away” from their debts are just acting optimally on the individual level, and mimicking the way firms behave. Corporations act to maximize the returns to their shareholders, and individuals making a rational decision to break a contract are acting in the interests of their family members. Trust is essential in a capitalist order, but utility maximizing mindset is likely eroding it. Perhaps a transparent society may increase, not decrease, trust by making “immoral” but “rational” behavior more public?
外观：民权的新篇章。左翼自由主义者对特定权利的关注开始真正失控。存在很多基于外表的偏见，但就像智力一样，当谈到外表时，大多数人并不认为自己的吸引力低于平均水平。也许活动人士推动法律颁布的一种方式是呼吁不同的影响。黑人比白人更肥胖，因此基于外表的偏见具有事实上的种族成分（这种情况明确禁止基于智商的就业测试）。
请注意欧洲两个生育率集群之间的巨大差异。希腊和荷兰之间的差距最大，TFR 为 1.51 比 1.78。
（从重新发布 探索/ GNXP 经作者或代表的许可）
关注@razibkhan 
Aren’t looks kinda subjective, though?
well, “kind of.” there are some parameters which are human universals. symmetry and secondary sexual characteristics are two independent dimensions which are cross-cultural.
others are not (i.e., bollywood actresses seem a bit plump to americans). teasing apart these sorts of issues are going to be a minefield. one of the issues with this sort of public policy response to a “social problem” is that it conflates sex, race, and other differences into a big oppression bin. the analogy is made explicitly in the article. but i think the various classes differ in qualitative ways. e.g., you may not encounter black people day to day, or have blacks in your family, but you have interactions with, and family members of, the opposite sex, and attractiveness tends to vary within families.
And regarding the IQ tests and any racial component, at least in my opinion the ‘but if we do this, it’ll factor out a lot of people of such-and-such ethnic group’ argument is really, really dumb – and I say this as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Race is an EXCEEDINGLY dumb basis on which to, say, make hiring decisions. However, if a disproportionate percentage of a group of people defined on any basis other than intelligence/looks/whatever a person is selecting for is weeded out on the basis of a certain test, I think the appropriate response is, instead of saying ‘OH WELL WE’D BETTER CHUCK THAT CRITERION’, to give a concerned ‘Hmmm’, figure out why this disparity is so, and ameliorate what part of the disparity is addressable.
But in the case of ethnicity and IQ and looks and things such as that, the people who can do anything about this probably figure it takes too much money and time, just the way it takes too much money and time to do other things.
Humans are crappy long-term planners.
Also, looks are sort of a dumb thing to select on too, but I can sort of see why people do it.
Now intelligence and judgment – if someone DIDN’T select for these things when, for example, hiring someone, I’d wonder if there was lint between their ears.
Also, looks are sort of a dumb thing to select on too, but I can sort of see why people do it.
1) a lot of preference for the hot is subconscious. so good looking teachers get better eval. markers from elementary schoolers, who claim they’re smarter.
2) this general preference can translate into more sales, etc., in positions which require interface with the public. so there is a rational reason in many areas to select the best looking person you can get, all things equal (and sometimes not all things equal). but in this case you’re catering to the public bias.
i think the issue with #2 is the contemporary discussion hasn’t grappled with unequal endowments. it isn’t fair that some people are born fug or dumb. but what are we going to do about it? “ban” prejudice against the ugly or dumb? it’s much more complex and deep rooted than prejudice against religious groups, for example.
by deep rooted. if someone is extremely ugly there are probably evolutionary reasons why people have an aversion/disinclination toward that person. their genetic fitness is probably not as high. that’s different from prejudice against muslims wearing hjiabs, which is just a specific instantiation of group conformity and ingroup/outgroup biases/
是时候关注通过定制噬菌体对传染性细菌进行生物控制了吗？
“对于美国人来说，宝莱坞女演员似乎有点胖”：我敢打赌，反之亦然。
“左翼自由主义者对特定权利的关注开始真正失控。”
为何如此？ 10 年前不正确的“左翼自由主义关注特定权利”如今是否正确？
密歇根猫头鹰店案就是一个很好的例子：它基于 1976 年颁布的一项法律，该法律明确规定基于体重的歧视为非法。那里没有什么新鲜事。 35 年过去了，密歇根州仍然是唯一制定此类法律的州。
在我看来，有足够的控制权——这个国家的立法机关和司法法官都不是由左倾的特定权利迷所主导。
也许这句话应该是“我不喜欢《波士顿环球报》上的这篇文章。”
我在一种宗教文化中长大，在这种文化中，人们永远不应该说女人丑陋。如果一个女人丑陋，那是因为上帝创造了她。但说一个人愚蠢是完全可以的。
“我认为适当的回应是，不要说‘哦，我们最好放弃那个标准’，而是给出一个担忧的‘嗯’，弄清楚为什么会出现这种差异，并改善哪些部分的差异是可以解决的。”
你不认为这已经被尝试过吗？对于为什么智商差距如此持续存在，一直有一个很好的可行假设。它只是还不太“可修复”，而且在政治上不正确，因此很难解决，更不用说改善了。因此，差点将军会尽可能取消测试。
奥兰，不要告诉我我应该发布什么。 您很久以前就注意到，要在这里发表评论，您必须给予我应有的尊重。 什么都没有改变，婊子。 你也仍然是一个A级混蛋（继续阅读，甚至在我的博客上发表评论，尽管我故意虐待你以驱赶你。你就像一只他妈的蚊子）。
不完全正确。但“解决”这个问题需要强制优生、大规模绝育和种族清洗。
奥兰，不要告诉我我应该发布什么。 您很久以前就注意到，要在这里发表评论，您必须给予我应有的尊重。 什么都没有改变，婊子。 你也仍然是一个A级混蛋（继续阅读，甚至在我的博客上发表评论，尽管我故意虐待你以驱赶你。你就像一只他妈的蚊子）。
哇。
what’s the issue diarmid?
There’s been research that’s found a positive correlation between perceived beauty and a number of other traits. Acting on a beauty bias may very well be rational.
“奥兰，不要告诉我应该发布什么。您很久以前就指出，要在这里发表评论，您必须给予我应有的尊重。那里什么都没有改变，婊子。而你也仍然是一个A级混蛋（继续阅读，甚至在我的博客上发表评论，尽管事实上我故意虐待你以赶走你。你就像一只该死的蚊子）。
哈哈。天哪，你很容易。
我听从你的意见：我的愚蠢与你相比根本不算什么。
你的博客通常很有趣而且做得很好。在个人电脑问题上，你始终不理性，甚至没有错。我很高兴看到你也减弱了对种族的关注（至少在这里）。