It might be one of the cases where correlation doesn't imply causation. For an objective study, we would need to assign children to groups randomly. Otherwise, we can miss various obscure selection effects. (For example, if children who are more likely to be scouts, are also likely to be from a particular socioeconomic background).
I don't know. The Japanese are usually known for their dependence on the society and social norms. In the corporate world, they find it normal to work overtime without pay, never take vacations longer than several days at a time, and they seem to find it hard to disagree with their bosses. That's not what I would call a culture of independence.
Given that the race was pretty close, I wonder if we have Peter Thiel to thank for this result. Personally, I have a feeling that Trump would lose without Thiel's support.
Great resource! I hope it grows to be a huge collection indeed. Also I hope it'll manage to avoid all the potential legal problems when people (knowingly or unknowingly) start submitting books that are not actually freeware.
Everything about Apple these days points to the same elephant in the room: their top management are just a bunch of clueless salesmen without their leader.
For some reason, in Europe, even less people seriously consider cryonics as an option, despite the population being generally less religious. Some view it with cynicism. Others just laugh.
Musk strikes me as an imaginative but a very rational person who deeply thinks about stuff, so this is confusing to me.
His argument that our world is most likely a simulation does seem logical given our current knowledge. However, breaking out of the simulation is completely another matter, more in line with Hollywood thinking than with anything that scientists can be engaged to do, at least currently.
> “The merge has begun—and a merge is our best scenario. Any version without a merge will have conflict: we enslave the A.I. or it enslaves us. The full-on-crazy version of the merge is we get our brains uploaded into my butt. I’d love that,” he said.
I had to disable the extension to verify that it was its work and not the actual quote.
> if somebody takes the trouble to point something out to you (say, that someone you've never met used to be a very politically-active left-winger), what they pointed out must be relevant to the conversation.
Even if the brain believes that all things that are pointed out are relevant, that still doesn't explain this problem with bad communication.
There are two statements, P and Q, and you have a question of what's more probable: statement P or the conjunction P&Q. The experimenter (communicating badly) makes you believe that Q has a very high probability. However, it is still logically impossible for P&Q to be more probable than P.
> nobody can prove or disprove the existence of a higher being or a religion.
You don't believe in something just because you cannot disprove it. You must have some evidence to believe it in the first place. Otherwise, you would believe in all kinds of celestial teapots.