<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">The first warning sign that the article is probably worthless</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">is</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">that it</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">was written by</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">Robert Epstein, a</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">psychologist and former editor of Psychology Today, a "science" that hasn't discovered anything of much importance</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">today or</span><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">in decades. John Clark</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">Now John, I have to scold you for that. You just do not know what you are talking about. Clinical psychology, for which I have little respect (some), constitutes a plurality of psychology but not a majority. Most of the goofy stuff comes out of clinical. </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"> Psychologists are everywhere: designing dashboards for NASA (as well as being intimately involved in training astronauts), doing great cognitive work like Kahneman and TVersky (and winning a Nobel Prize for it), designing ads, contributing to neurology, and tons more. </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">Yes, we are a science. Get outside of the clinical part and you have plenty of hard science. Give us a break - dealing with human subjects is about the hardest thing to do experiments with. Our brains are the most complicated thing in the known universe.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">I agree about the article and I have never had much respect for Psychology Today. It is embarrassing when a psychologist goes far beyond what we actually know. There is a tremendous amount of junk 'science' coming out of psychology, not all of it clinical. We are young. Our errors are to the left of the decimal, not the right, as typical in physics. We have physiological psychology at one end and social psychology at the other, linking us to biology and sociology (the latter I have very little respect for - the socio, not the social, that is). It is a huge field, with spinoffs like behavioral economics.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">Most people, like you, are just not aware of what psychology has evolved to. Read Stephen Pinker if you want some really up to date good science. He may be our best. </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">I would say that we are ahead of economics, a good bit behind biology, way behind chemistry and physics. As I said - we are young.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:large">bill w</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:18 AM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:</div></span><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><a href="https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993" target="_blank">https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993</a></font><br></div><div><font color="#000000" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try to follow.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><font size="4">The first warning sign that the article is probably worthless<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>is<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that it<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>was written by<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Robert Epstein, a<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>psychologist and former editor of Psychology Today, a "science" that hasn't discovered anything of much importance<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>today or<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>in decades. The second warning sign was in the<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>ridiculous<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>opening tag line "<i>Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories</i><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div>. So after that I just quickly skimmed the article, however one sentence did catch my eye:</font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div><i>the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor</i></blockquote><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><div><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Years ago they said the brain was like a switchboard and that was indeed a metaphor because a switchboard can't beat a human brain </font><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">at Chess or GO or Jeopardy, but a computer can.</div> And nobody would hesitate to call a human champion of those games intelligent. And that's why a computer is more than just another metaphor. </font></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="display:inline"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">> a story we tell to make sense of something we don’t actually understand.</blockquote><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Richard Feynman felt that you don't really understand something until you can do it, and I think he was right. If Mr. </font>Epstein can make something that behaves intelligently then his philosophy of mind would be worth studying, until then it's just metaphorical hot air. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"> John K Clark </font></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>