Thursday, May 24, 2007
Traveler´s Dilema
How some people have problems to get into the substance of problems
Soon, however, it strikes her that if she wrote 99 instead, she would make a little more money, because in that case she would get $101. But surely this insight will also occur to Pete, and if both wrote 99, Lucy would get $99. If Pete wrote 99, then she could do better by writing 98, in which case she would get $100. Yet the same logic would lead Pete to choose 98 as well. In that case, she could deviate to 97 and earn $99. And so on. Continuing with this line of reasoning would take the travelers spiraling down to the smallest permissible number, namely, 2. It may seem highly implausible that Lucy would really go all the way down to 2 in this fashion. That does not matter (and is, in fact, the whole point)--this is where the logic leads us.
This is a part of description of so called TD, travelers Dilemma, compared to well known PD, Prisoners Dilemma, taken from Scientific American: The Traveler's Dilemma
It shocks me how some people do not see the real substance of humans or just cannot describe properly what they think.
The whole problem consists of two problems: first is the relation of traveler A to the captain of airplane and second the relation to the fellow traveler B. These are two levels of relation, two levels that human beings always consider at the same time, without knowing it.
At first level, that means only the relation of travelers to the captain, here it would be logical to get as much as possible, that means writing $100. At the second level there comes envy in play and both travelers might incline to solutions that will bring them the same amount.
Actually, there is a joke to this human feature: A man comes to church and complains that his neighbor´s got a second cow. God tells him to quote “Father” 5 times and then he will have the second cow at home too. The man gets angry and says that he does not want the second cow. God irritated asks what he wants and the man replies: his cow should die.
So instead of getting better with the help of God (as captain in TD game) the man prefers to stay equal with his neighbor.
This type of equalitarian thinking is typical for simple minded humans who only want to prevent envy, and believe that all humans are equal, which is not true.
So the only reasonable solution to the TD is writing 100, the highest possible number allowed by the captain.
Soon, however, it strikes her that if she wrote 99 instead, she would make a little more money, because in that case she would get $101. But surely this insight will also occur to Pete, and if both wrote 99, Lucy would get $99. If Pete wrote 99, then she could do better by writing 98, in which case she would get $100. Yet the same logic would lead Pete to choose 98 as well. In that case, she could deviate to 97 and earn $99. And so on. Continuing with this line of reasoning would take the travelers spiraling down to the smallest permissible number, namely, 2. It may seem highly implausible that Lucy would really go all the way down to 2 in this fashion. That does not matter (and is, in fact, the whole point)--this is where the logic leads us.
This is a part of description of so called TD, travelers Dilemma, compared to well known PD, Prisoners Dilemma, taken from Scientific American: The Traveler's Dilemma
It shocks me how some people do not see the real substance of humans or just cannot describe properly what they think.
The whole problem consists of two problems: first is the relation of traveler A to the captain of airplane and second the relation to the fellow traveler B. These are two levels of relation, two levels that human beings always consider at the same time, without knowing it.
At first level, that means only the relation of travelers to the captain, here it would be logical to get as much as possible, that means writing $100. At the second level there comes envy in play and both travelers might incline to solutions that will bring them the same amount.
Actually, there is a joke to this human feature: A man comes to church and complains that his neighbor´s got a second cow. God tells him to quote “Father” 5 times and then he will have the second cow at home too. The man gets angry and says that he does not want the second cow. God irritated asks what he wants and the man replies: his cow should die.
So instead of getting better with the help of God (as captain in TD game) the man prefers to stay equal with his neighbor.
This type of equalitarian thinking is typical for simple minded humans who only want to prevent envy, and believe that all humans are equal, which is not true.
So the only reasonable solution to the TD is writing 100, the highest possible number allowed by the captain.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
NEUROECONOMICS
Economics and Darwin again
There is a huge need for Neuroeconomics, and this might be a small contribution to perceiving economics as that what it really is: only another form of competition
Group thinking is the basis of human thinking, but the problem is we are not a homogenous group. Every nation consists minimally of 5 layers of its own population; elite, upper class, middle class, proletarians, and homeless. Every one of these groups perceives the same event as completely different one. Whilst proletarians might react fearfully or aggressively to immigrants; members of middle or upper class might welcome the immigrants, as certain cervices might be offered by these people cheaper.
Now the question is what has deeper impact, the coherence to own higher group or wish to get some service cheaper. The proletarians have the problem of time: they would wish to perform better and get better paid, but the ability to learn is generally lower in this group and so it will take time, maybe even generations, but the immigrants are coming right now and so giving no time to our proletarians to improve, they only feel that they lose part of their work to immigrants and thus losing also part of their income, which makes them feel anger against these immigrants.
This problem is not only a problem of the USA but of all developed countries, like Germany, where e.g. the highest negative reactions to immigrants are displayed by German proletarians formerly living in the Eastern part of Germany governed by communists.
One may never forget that we humans are guided not by a single event but by many that are in context, and that we are not only a member of one group but of many groups at the same time. Therefore, it is sometimes so difficult to see the real reason for some observed reaction.
Actually, the fear of immigrants displayed by proletarians can be compared to the reaction of British workers several hundred years ago when they were afraid of simple machines and destroyed them in order to maintain their own working place.
The real problem is emotionally perceived discrepancy between own ability to learn and felt lack of time to adjust, adapt to new situation. It is an evolutionary problem.
There is a huge need for Neuroeconomics, and this might be a small contribution to perceiving economics as that what it really is: only another form of competition
Group thinking is the basis of human thinking, but the problem is we are not a homogenous group. Every nation consists minimally of 5 layers of its own population; elite, upper class, middle class, proletarians, and homeless. Every one of these groups perceives the same event as completely different one. Whilst proletarians might react fearfully or aggressively to immigrants; members of middle or upper class might welcome the immigrants, as certain cervices might be offered by these people cheaper.
Now the question is what has deeper impact, the coherence to own higher group or wish to get some service cheaper. The proletarians have the problem of time: they would wish to perform better and get better paid, but the ability to learn is generally lower in this group and so it will take time, maybe even generations, but the immigrants are coming right now and so giving no time to our proletarians to improve, they only feel that they lose part of their work to immigrants and thus losing also part of their income, which makes them feel anger against these immigrants.
This problem is not only a problem of the USA but of all developed countries, like Germany, where e.g. the highest negative reactions to immigrants are displayed by German proletarians formerly living in the Eastern part of Germany governed by communists.
One may never forget that we humans are guided not by a single event but by many that are in context, and that we are not only a member of one group but of many groups at the same time. Therefore, it is sometimes so difficult to see the real reason for some observed reaction.
Actually, the fear of immigrants displayed by proletarians can be compared to the reaction of British workers several hundred years ago when they were afraid of simple machines and destroyed them in order to maintain their own working place.
The real problem is emotionally perceived discrepancy between own ability to learn and felt lack of time to adjust, adapt to new situation. It is an evolutionary problem.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
WAR IS DEBILITATING
Some remarks on human reactions and not only in war
War is debilitating and some, other not so severe experiences do so too, in a smaller scale.
The sentence that war is debilitating can be read here and also there are descriptions of reactions to the experiences of violence, fear and stress. There are different types and different levels of violence, fear and stress and therefore there are also different reactions to it accordingly.
By severe emotional experiences the reactions can be vomiting, fainting or psychosis. If the experience is less severe there is anyway emotional reaction to it, only it is not so severe, sometimes some people even cannot recognize the specific reaction as a reaction to stressful experiences and they just only believe that the person is not quite normal.
The problem is the disjunction of semiotic signals; they usually can denote more than only one single and discrete phenomenon, and we people have huge problems in deciding what they actually show and stand for. Typical example can be the higher bodily temperature measured in a patient by a doctor. It can mean influenza or kidney inflammation. It depends on further “signals”.
So, many human reactions are absolutely normal reactions to experienced stress, violence or fear. Only other people cannot understand that as they have not experienced the same stress, the same violence of fear, or they just do not want to accept the reaction as normal protection.
The misinterpretation of signals “broadcasted by people as a reaction upon some other event is absolutely normal if the interpreting persons have no experience with such reactions or such experiences or when it is on purpose denied as normal, e.g. by criminal policemen who know reactions of people under stress or fear or after some violent act. These policemen can maintain that the reaction is not normal even if it is. The purpose of such proclamations is only to make the person insecure of own reactions and manipulate public against such person.
This is typically the case in primitive nations where policemen believe they were given power to misuse it without any punishments, typically in underdeveloped nations, or underdeveloped persons in developed nations, and at many differentiated levels.
War is debilitating and some, other not so severe experiences do so too, in a smaller scale.
The sentence that war is debilitating can be read here and also there are descriptions of reactions to the experiences of violence, fear and stress. There are different types and different levels of violence, fear and stress and therefore there are also different reactions to it accordingly.
By severe emotional experiences the reactions can be vomiting, fainting or psychosis. If the experience is less severe there is anyway emotional reaction to it, only it is not so severe, sometimes some people even cannot recognize the specific reaction as a reaction to stressful experiences and they just only believe that the person is not quite normal.
The problem is the disjunction of semiotic signals; they usually can denote more than only one single and discrete phenomenon, and we people have huge problems in deciding what they actually show and stand for. Typical example can be the higher bodily temperature measured in a patient by a doctor. It can mean influenza or kidney inflammation. It depends on further “signals”.
So, many human reactions are absolutely normal reactions to experienced stress, violence or fear. Only other people cannot understand that as they have not experienced the same stress, the same violence of fear, or they just do not want to accept the reaction as normal protection.
The misinterpretation of signals “broadcasted by people as a reaction upon some other event is absolutely normal if the interpreting persons have no experience with such reactions or such experiences or when it is on purpose denied as normal, e.g. by criminal policemen who know reactions of people under stress or fear or after some violent act. These policemen can maintain that the reaction is not normal even if it is. The purpose of such proclamations is only to make the person insecure of own reactions and manipulate public against such person.
This is typically the case in primitive nations where policemen believe they were given power to misuse it without any punishments, typically in underdeveloped nations, or underdeveloped persons in developed nations, and at many differentiated levels.
Morality and Rules
This my remark was inspoired by the PDF paper in the internet, I show the link to the paper.
MORAL RULES and CONVENTIONAL RULES
i. Moral rules are held to have an objective, prescriptive force; they are not dependent on the authority of any individual or institution.
ii. Moral rules are taken to hold generally, not just locally; they not only proscribe behavior here and now, but also in other countries and at other times in history.
iii. Violations of moral rules involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rights have been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice.
iv. Violations of moral rules are typically more serious than violations of conventional rules.
Conventional rules, on Turiel’s account, have just the opposite cluster of properties. They do not have objective, prescriptive force; rather they are viewed as arbitrary or situation-dependent, and can be suspended or changed by an appropriate authoritative individual or institution. Conventional rules are often geographically & temporally local; those applicable in one community often will not apply in other communities or at other times in history. Violations of conventional rules do not involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rights have been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice and these violations are typically less serious than violations of moral rule.
All of the above is a quotation from this PDF file . What I like most is the differentiation between moral rules and conventional rules that means laws made by some kind of legislative body. This kind of differentiation explains why we sometimes feel punished by law, i.e. conventional rules but do not feel guilty at all.
There might be two ways of moral rules coming into force. One way is when moral rules can be derived from conventional rules that being used for a long time might become moral rules or the second way when some rule has “always” been a moral rule even among animals, e.g. taking care of offsprings etc.
In some societies rules, laws, are treated the same way, be it a moral rule or a conventional rule, sometimes even conventional rules receive higher importance than moral rules, such societies usually have problems with proper perceiving of what is right and what is wrong. Mostly such societies are extremely formal ones and have difficulties to understand moral rules at all, or mostly.
MORAL RULES and CONVENTIONAL RULES
i. Moral rules are held to have an objective, prescriptive force; they are not dependent on the authority of any individual or institution.
ii. Moral rules are taken to hold generally, not just locally; they not only proscribe behavior here and now, but also in other countries and at other times in history.
iii. Violations of moral rules involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rights have been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice.
iv. Violations of moral rules are typically more serious than violations of conventional rules.
Conventional rules, on Turiel’s account, have just the opposite cluster of properties. They do not have objective, prescriptive force; rather they are viewed as arbitrary or situation-dependent, and can be suspended or changed by an appropriate authoritative individual or institution. Conventional rules are often geographically & temporally local; those applicable in one community often will not apply in other communities or at other times in history. Violations of conventional rules do not involve a victim who has been harmed, whose rights have been violated, or who has been subject to an injustice and these violations are typically less serious than violations of moral rule.
All of the above is a quotation from this PDF file . What I like most is the differentiation between moral rules and conventional rules that means laws made by some kind of legislative body. This kind of differentiation explains why we sometimes feel punished by law, i.e. conventional rules but do not feel guilty at all.
There might be two ways of moral rules coming into force. One way is when moral rules can be derived from conventional rules that being used for a long time might become moral rules or the second way when some rule has “always” been a moral rule even among animals, e.g. taking care of offsprings etc.
In some societies rules, laws, are treated the same way, be it a moral rule or a conventional rule, sometimes even conventional rules receive higher importance than moral rules, such societies usually have problems with proper perceiving of what is right and what is wrong. Mostly such societies are extremely formal ones and have difficulties to understand moral rules at all, or mostly.
Professor Hauser and Morality again
Hauser, morality and groups
News: Right and wrong is in our genes this is the title of the article I would like everybody to read. There are plenty of good ideas and one can continue reading similar ideas when you use the link in my previous post on Professor Hauser and Morality
Just only a small quotation here
The argument goes that humans are social animals and depend on group interactions for food and other necessities. Groups work better when members can trust one another and practice reciprocity. Because humans can quickly identify a breach of trust, they can readily punish a transgressor. Over time, those who demonstrate more cooperative and trustworthy tendencies can build a more cohesive society and will have a survival advantage.
Here, in the Czech Republic this seems no to be as much developed as in other nations. Czechs usually prefer to “obey” the one equipped with power to punish, someone with the formal power given to him by some kind of function. One can see that easily in schools, where old fashioned, through communistic upbringing damaged school directors do not do the best for the students but the best for themselves, they just only wish to stay at their higher position, it is mostly not their wish to go into a discourse on any vague topic with the higher authority; they have only learned to obey.
Of course, this is not only at schools, you can see it mostly all around, and so this nation was , is and will stayed affected negatively by communists primitive and egoistic emotions for decades and for generations.
This group is damaged but the members of this group mostly do not know it and refuse to accept such ideas.
News: Right and wrong is in our genes this is the title of the article I would like everybody to read. There are plenty of good ideas and one can continue reading similar ideas when you use the link in my previous post on Professor Hauser and Morality
Just only a small quotation here
The argument goes that humans are social animals and depend on group interactions for food and other necessities. Groups work better when members can trust one another and practice reciprocity. Because humans can quickly identify a breach of trust, they can readily punish a transgressor. Over time, those who demonstrate more cooperative and trustworthy tendencies can build a more cohesive society and will have a survival advantage.
Here, in the Czech Republic this seems no to be as much developed as in other nations. Czechs usually prefer to “obey” the one equipped with power to punish, someone with the formal power given to him by some kind of function. One can see that easily in schools, where old fashioned, through communistic upbringing damaged school directors do not do the best for the students but the best for themselves, they just only wish to stay at their higher position, it is mostly not their wish to go into a discourse on any vague topic with the higher authority; they have only learned to obey.
Of course, this is not only at schools, you can see it mostly all around, and so this nation was , is and will stayed affected negatively by communists primitive and egoistic emotions for decades and for generations.
This group is damaged but the members of this group mostly do not know it and refuse to accept such ideas.
EVOLUTION again
Hauser and morality
Spite the fact that I originally aimed – and basically – have been always aiming at Czech students I must write this short remark in English. This morning I have found Professor Hauser and his ideas on the internet. HERE you may see what results Google can find about Hauser and morality, the beloved topic of Professor Hauser.
There are plenty of articles about his ideas, commented or uncommented, etc. I really do appreciate his approach, though I believe I am much further with my ideas on humans and their morality than Prof. Hauser.
Prof Hauser has gathered plenty of evidence for the fact that certain human reactions are common to all people across the world as well as for both sexes. This appears to be the evidence for the fact that we have developed our morality step by step and certain moral reactions are common to all of us, and some do differ. This is also evidence for evolution as such.
The problem I have been facing is the problem how to explain this to other people. The only way I believe is the good one is to have prepared several concrete and discrete cases describing the phenomenon I want to explain, as I can never know in advance which of my set up “stories” will really hit the listener. As people have the same basis but differ as a result of their informational environment it is seldom the case that all people can understand the same example explained to them.
The only thing I can do here is just advice people to read what Hauser has to say and think hard about that and bring in one’s own experiences to support Hauser’s evidence, then you may understand a bit more. Just do it.
Spite the fact that I originally aimed – and basically – have been always aiming at Czech students I must write this short remark in English. This morning I have found Professor Hauser and his ideas on the internet. HERE you may see what results Google can find about Hauser and morality, the beloved topic of Professor Hauser.
There are plenty of articles about his ideas, commented or uncommented, etc. I really do appreciate his approach, though I believe I am much further with my ideas on humans and their morality than Prof. Hauser.
Prof Hauser has gathered plenty of evidence for the fact that certain human reactions are common to all people across the world as well as for both sexes. This appears to be the evidence for the fact that we have developed our morality step by step and certain moral reactions are common to all of us, and some do differ. This is also evidence for evolution as such.
The problem I have been facing is the problem how to explain this to other people. The only way I believe is the good one is to have prepared several concrete and discrete cases describing the phenomenon I want to explain, as I can never know in advance which of my set up “stories” will really hit the listener. As people have the same basis but differ as a result of their informational environment it is seldom the case that all people can understand the same example explained to them.
The only thing I can do here is just advice people to read what Hauser has to say and think hard about that and bring in one’s own experiences to support Hauser’s evidence, then you may understand a bit more. Just do it.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Psychology of Humans
This morning I found this interesting article Google has found for me. The author is Linda Kimball who is said to have published plenty of articles. You may read her article called Animalization of Americans and make your own ideas on the topics she picks up.
She starts with the fact that certain social orders like Nazi Germany or communistic reign in the East of Europe committed plenty of criminal acts against humanity. Well, she is right it was so; these two systems of organizing society were criminal. Linda concludes that these acts were committed because people did not believed in God and their minds were penetrated by smart people like Darwin and others.
She missed many other parts of our human criminal history, Mongols killed nearly anybody they met and they knew nothing about Darwin, crusaders were killing also basically anybody they met in order to get their property, and they did it in the name of God. So God must be pretty bad guy sending one group of humans to kill the members of other group of humans. Think of that Linda.
Linda might be author who is read by certain circle of people but these people are missing any kind of proper logic and believe – as , of course, Linda does apparently too, that human race is the ruling and good type of creatures. Well, we are not, though working on it in some parts of the world. Some people today live lives that are close to lives of animals, there are tribes of humans who have not developed further for many reasons. Very often only scientists are allowed to visit such tribes in order to permit for natural development and not to influence these people.
To me Linda’s article is at the level of the church that did not hesitate to kill somebody just only for saying the truth about the nature, just think of the fate of those who maintained that Earth is round and circulates around the Sun. Linda’s shows how miserable is education and thinking of some people and how it is felt absolutely necessary to believe that humans are superior to anybody and anything because God wanted that so.
I watched TV report on German males who like to rebel in different German cities and some other Germans who go to war just because thy must have the feeling of power and killing. It is not only Germans, but also Russians, Czechs, Poles and males of many other nations need the feeling of being able to kill, to perform power. If this is what God really wanted, so we must admit that he made some severe mistakes.
One might ask why Linda does not see these clear signs of animal primitivism in humans. One of the males said he wanted to go to the front in order to help where the need is huge. What he really wanted to say is he wanted to go to the front to fight and to kill. There were not only Germans but also Americans. One must understand a bit about human psychology in order to be able to recognize that people very often “better” their activities by describing them in better words and so pretending some other reasons, exactly what the man said:” I wanted to go to the front where the need is huge”. He pretends to be good, because saying: „I want to go to the front to feel how I can kill other people”, would not fit the nice picture of being a human.
Linda, Linda, you should study a bit more and maybe with the time you might understand mistakes in your own logic, if you refuse to do that, you just behave as the man who wanted to go to the front, you refuse the truth because your false picture of world would collapse and you do not want to experience the feeling of admitting that all you thought and believed last 40 years was false. This is a perfect human psychological system of preventing own imaginations of world. You do not see the world, only your imagination and it is wrong. Only few people in the world are as smart as to understand life, the others only believe they do, but in fact they understand little to nothing.
She starts with the fact that certain social orders like Nazi Germany or communistic reign in the East of Europe committed plenty of criminal acts against humanity. Well, she is right it was so; these two systems of organizing society were criminal. Linda concludes that these acts were committed because people did not believed in God and their minds were penetrated by smart people like Darwin and others.
She missed many other parts of our human criminal history, Mongols killed nearly anybody they met and they knew nothing about Darwin, crusaders were killing also basically anybody they met in order to get their property, and they did it in the name of God. So God must be pretty bad guy sending one group of humans to kill the members of other group of humans. Think of that Linda.
Linda might be author who is read by certain circle of people but these people are missing any kind of proper logic and believe – as , of course, Linda does apparently too, that human race is the ruling and good type of creatures. Well, we are not, though working on it in some parts of the world. Some people today live lives that are close to lives of animals, there are tribes of humans who have not developed further for many reasons. Very often only scientists are allowed to visit such tribes in order to permit for natural development and not to influence these people.
To me Linda’s article is at the level of the church that did not hesitate to kill somebody just only for saying the truth about the nature, just think of the fate of those who maintained that Earth is round and circulates around the Sun. Linda’s shows how miserable is education and thinking of some people and how it is felt absolutely necessary to believe that humans are superior to anybody and anything because God wanted that so.
I watched TV report on German males who like to rebel in different German cities and some other Germans who go to war just because thy must have the feeling of power and killing. It is not only Germans, but also Russians, Czechs, Poles and males of many other nations need the feeling of being able to kill, to perform power. If this is what God really wanted, so we must admit that he made some severe mistakes.
One might ask why Linda does not see these clear signs of animal primitivism in humans. One of the males said he wanted to go to the front in order to help where the need is huge. What he really wanted to say is he wanted to go to the front to fight and to kill. There were not only Germans but also Americans. One must understand a bit about human psychology in order to be able to recognize that people very often “better” their activities by describing them in better words and so pretending some other reasons, exactly what the man said:” I wanted to go to the front where the need is huge”. He pretends to be good, because saying: „I want to go to the front to feel how I can kill other people”, would not fit the nice picture of being a human.
Linda, Linda, you should study a bit more and maybe with the time you might understand mistakes in your own logic, if you refuse to do that, you just behave as the man who wanted to go to the front, you refuse the truth because your false picture of world would collapse and you do not want to experience the feeling of admitting that all you thought and believed last 40 years was false. This is a perfect human psychological system of preventing own imaginations of world. You do not see the world, only your imagination and it is wrong. Only few people in the world are as smart as to understand life, the others only believe they do, but in fact they understand little to nothing.
