I couldn't remember if we had talked about this before.
The ratio of the length of your second finger (index) divided by the length of your fourth finger (ring) is indicative of the amount of testosterone your were exposed to in the womb.
Digit ratio is correlated with a bunch of interesting characteristics including spacial awareness, numeracy, competitiveness, leadership, and inventiveness. The brains of high and low digit ratio people work very differently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio
This BBC video is very interesting. Begins at 31 minutes.
http://youtu.be/3dMvJY3FPkc?t=31m
So, what is your digit ratio? How about your spouse?
What's your digit ratio?
taekvideo, I agree those correlations are so crazy they are almost unbelievable.
Here is a study showing that digit ratio predicts success as a high frequency trader
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626753/
And another showing it as a predictor of verbal and numerical intelligence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626753/
It is difficult to measure. I used a vernier and it was still hard to get an accurate measurement. I have a 76mm / 81mm = .938. Pretty much average.
Here is a study showing that digit ratio predicts success as a high frequency trader
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626753/
And another showing it as a predictor of verbal and numerical intelligence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626753/
It is difficult to measure. I used a vernier and it was still hard to get an accurate measurement. I have a 76mm / 81mm = .938. Pretty much average.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6861
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Whoops, thanks Jenny
Verbal and numerical study here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 01388?np=y
I'm just glad I don't have to run a 5000 meter race against you.
Verbal and numerical study here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 01388?np=y
I'm just glad I don't have to run a 5000 meter race against you.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6861
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
I'm not sure what's worse, being pegged so accurately by the length of my ring finger, or hearing those traits described as "masculine" and "feminine." I understand why they use those terms, I'm just uncomfortable with it. (LOL, maybe because I'd be described as masculine.)
This kind of stuff is creepy. Should we be measuring digit ratios in preschool and educating children according to predetermined abilities? What's to stop people from trying to alter the amount of testosterone during pregnancy to produce kids that are good at math?
This kind of stuff is creepy. Should we be measuring digit ratios in preschool and educating children according to predetermined abilities? What's to stop people from trying to alter the amount of testosterone during pregnancy to produce kids that are good at math?
@jenny: I think you nailed it, creepy Gattaca stuff... Look at the correlations, it's pretty much do or die! Are the female correlations as bad as the males?
"I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own life." (Matrix)
I prefer the Free Will zeitgeist over the deterministic.
Although I didn't really want to find out I was doomed from since day 0-n, I still went ahead with it... I've got one hand low, one hand higher. 0_o
I'll just keep assuming I can accomplish what I put my mind to despite the length of my fingers!
"I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own life." (Matrix)
I prefer the Free Will zeitgeist over the deterministic.
Although I didn't really want to find out I was doomed from since day 0-n, I still went ahead with it... I've got one hand low, one hand higher. 0_o
I'll just keep assuming I can accomplish what I put my mind to despite the length of my fingers!
.955. Pretty much this intersection of all three lines in the diagram on Wikipedia. I guess I'm just grossly ordinary/average.
It was interesting seeing Simon Baron-Cohen in the video. He is the cousin of the actor, Sasha, of "Borat" fame and wrote a book in 2011 called "The Science of Evil" about empathy, autism and psychopathy that is well worth reading if you are interested in such things.
It was interesting seeing Simon Baron-Cohen in the video. He is the cousin of the actor, Sasha, of "Borat" fame and wrote a book in 2011 called "The Science of Evil" about empathy, autism and psychopathy that is well worth reading if you are interested in such things.
It is creepy. It's similar to realizing that there are ten times the number of bacteria in our body than there are human cells. Looking through a microscope at a slide covered in that bacteria can be very disturbing.
@JohnnyH, "I prefer the Free Will zeitgeist over the deterministic."
Me too. I want Free Will to be true. Trouble is, whenever I zoom in close I see things like this digit ratio thing. Sam Harris makes a good argument that Free Will is a delusion. I don't want to believe it but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
One thing I can say for sure... If I wasn't married I'd look closely at my potential spouse's fingers.
@JohnnyH, "I prefer the Free Will zeitgeist over the deterministic."
Me too. I want Free Will to be true. Trouble is, whenever I zoom in close I see things like this digit ratio thing. Sam Harris makes a good argument that Free Will is a delusion. I don't want to believe it but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
One thing I can say for sure... If I wasn't married I'd look closely at my potential spouse's fingers.
Harris' argument seems to suffer from the same flaw as classical economics -- its based on a static model -- i.e., he is only interested in the thought that is here at this moment. Thus, he's got a straw man there.
He later recognizes, although fails to acknowledge, this flaw when he starts talking about the possibility that the "causes" that likely lead to the thought are based in large part on prior choices. Thus, he is admitting that humans can program themselves to induce certain types of future thought patterns by choosing their environment and exposures to experience and information.
But he ultimate goal as to why he's doing all these mental gymnastics with bad models is to support a dogma that religion is "bad" and science-based atheism is "good". The English philosopher John Gray (he's kind of a modern Socrates/skeptic) takes a better and more sophisticated view that both views suffer from the same defects and dangers of over-zealous dogma. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society
More succinctly:
"Though it is often assumed that naturalism must be hostile to religion, the opposite is true. Enemies of religion think of it as an intellectual error, which humanity will eventually grow out of. It is hard to square this view with Darwinian science – why should religion be practically universal, if it has no evolutionary value? But as the evangelical zeal of contemporary atheists shows, it is not science that is at issue here. No form of human behaviour is more religious than the attempt to convert the world to unbelief, and none is more irrational, for belief has no particular importance in either science or religion.
Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control. The assumption is that each is busy constructing a picture of the world. Evangelical atheists preach the need for a scientific view of things, but a settled view does not go with scientific method. If we know anything it is that most of the theories that prevail at any one time are false. Scientific theories are not components of a world-view but tools we use to tinker with the world."
Gray, John (2011-03-29). The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death (p. 224). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
One very strange thing that Harris said was that he thought people born with psychopathic traits were "profoundly unlucky". I don't think most psychopaths would agree -- they are rather of the view that they are superior beings not burdened by the shackles of empathy. They certainly compete better and are more successful in many endeavors than ordinary persons. Only a fraction of them cannot control themselves and end up in jail.
But these types of statements lead me to believe that Harris has some huge blind spots and/or tends to cherry-pick his facts and assumptions to fit his theories. And why lectures like this remind of revival meetings, especially when you get to the fawning acolytes at the end.
Ultimately, I've still never heard a good rational, predictive explanation as to where particular thoughts -- particularly creative or new ones -- actually come from.
Meditate on that.
Sorry to go OT.
He later recognizes, although fails to acknowledge, this flaw when he starts talking about the possibility that the "causes" that likely lead to the thought are based in large part on prior choices. Thus, he is admitting that humans can program themselves to induce certain types of future thought patterns by choosing their environment and exposures to experience and information.
But he ultimate goal as to why he's doing all these mental gymnastics with bad models is to support a dogma that religion is "bad" and science-based atheism is "good". The English philosopher John Gray (he's kind of a modern Socrates/skeptic) takes a better and more sophisticated view that both views suffer from the same defects and dangers of over-zealous dogma. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/mar/15/society
More succinctly:
"Though it is often assumed that naturalism must be hostile to religion, the opposite is true. Enemies of religion think of it as an intellectual error, which humanity will eventually grow out of. It is hard to square this view with Darwinian science – why should religion be practically universal, if it has no evolutionary value? But as the evangelical zeal of contemporary atheists shows, it is not science that is at issue here. No form of human behaviour is more religious than the attempt to convert the world to unbelief, and none is more irrational, for belief has no particular importance in either science or religion.
Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control. The assumption is that each is busy constructing a picture of the world. Evangelical atheists preach the need for a scientific view of things, but a settled view does not go with scientific method. If we know anything it is that most of the theories that prevail at any one time are false. Scientific theories are not components of a world-view but tools we use to tinker with the world."
Gray, John (2011-03-29). The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death (p. 224). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
One very strange thing that Harris said was that he thought people born with psychopathic traits were "profoundly unlucky". I don't think most psychopaths would agree -- they are rather of the view that they are superior beings not burdened by the shackles of empathy. They certainly compete better and are more successful in many endeavors than ordinary persons. Only a fraction of them cannot control themselves and end up in jail.
But these types of statements lead me to believe that Harris has some huge blind spots and/or tends to cherry-pick his facts and assumptions to fit his theories. And why lectures like this remind of revival meetings, especially when you get to the fawning acolytes at the end.
Ultimately, I've still never heard a good rational, predictive explanation as to where particular thoughts -- particularly creative or new ones -- actually come from.
Meditate on that.
Sorry to go OT.
First I want to acknowledge that I am not a very good spokesperson for determinism because deep down inside I want to believe in Free Will. I know someone here (Chad or Spartan maybe?) are much more versed on this than me.
Dragline, I'm having trouble seeing the straw man you mentioned. Why would a focus on thoughts in the here-and-now make the argument a straw man? While I can envision the future and the past, I can only do so in the present, right?
He later recognizes, although fails to acknowledge, this flaw when he starts talking about the possibility that the "causes" that likely lead to the thought are based in large part on prior choices. Thus, he is admitting that humans can program themselves to induce certain types of future thought patterns by choosing their environment and exposures to experience and information.
This hinges on the word "choice". If I were sitting in an fMRI the neuroscientist looking at the screen could predict even before I do whether I will snap the fingers of my right hand or my left. They would be aware of my choice by seeing certain brain areas light up even before I become aware of it. So, that "choice" is not a choice at all. I don't control it. My conscious mind concocts a story after the fact, giving the illusion of control.
With regard to John Gray:
It is hard to square this view with Darwinian science – why should religion be practically universal, if it has no evolutionary value?
Now that is a straw man. Religion most certainly has evolutionary value. Social solidarity. The group that works together succeeds over the one that does not.
Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control.
From an evolutionary standpoint religion is all about cooperation. The ten commandments of Christianity, the five pillars of Islam, the eightfold path or four noble truths of Buddhism are designed to encourage group cohesion and social solidarity. Nature selected for individuals able to work within the system and shunned those who could not. It selected for the trait of religiosity.
And why lectures like this remind of revival meetings, especially when you get to the fawning acolytes at the end.
Money. $25,000 for a 45 minute talk. Not bad if you can get it.
Ultimately, I've still never heard a good rational, predictive explanation as to where particular thoughts -- particularly creative or new ones -- actually come from.
Meditate on that.
Indeed it is a mystery. We naturally abhor the unknown. Our brains are designed to fill the unknown with answers. When simple, understandable answers do not come readily, we fall back on our genetic and social programming to fill the unknown with beliefs.
With regard to being off topic..... I see this as an expansion of the topic, an opportunity for me to learn.
Dragline, I'm having trouble seeing the straw man you mentioned. Why would a focus on thoughts in the here-and-now make the argument a straw man? While I can envision the future and the past, I can only do so in the present, right?
He later recognizes, although fails to acknowledge, this flaw when he starts talking about the possibility that the "causes" that likely lead to the thought are based in large part on prior choices. Thus, he is admitting that humans can program themselves to induce certain types of future thought patterns by choosing their environment and exposures to experience and information.
This hinges on the word "choice". If I were sitting in an fMRI the neuroscientist looking at the screen could predict even before I do whether I will snap the fingers of my right hand or my left. They would be aware of my choice by seeing certain brain areas light up even before I become aware of it. So, that "choice" is not a choice at all. I don't control it. My conscious mind concocts a story after the fact, giving the illusion of control.
With regard to John Gray:
It is hard to square this view with Darwinian science – why should religion be practically universal, if it has no evolutionary value?
Now that is a straw man. Religion most certainly has evolutionary value. Social solidarity. The group that works together succeeds over the one that does not.
Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control.
From an evolutionary standpoint religion is all about cooperation. The ten commandments of Christianity, the five pillars of Islam, the eightfold path or four noble truths of Buddhism are designed to encourage group cohesion and social solidarity. Nature selected for individuals able to work within the system and shunned those who could not. It selected for the trait of religiosity.
And why lectures like this remind of revival meetings, especially when you get to the fawning acolytes at the end.
Money. $25,000 for a 45 minute talk. Not bad if you can get it.
Ultimately, I've still never heard a good rational, predictive explanation as to where particular thoughts -- particularly creative or new ones -- actually come from.
Meditate on that.
Indeed it is a mystery. We naturally abhor the unknown. Our brains are designed to fill the unknown with answers. When simple, understandable answers do not come readily, we fall back on our genetic and social programming to fill the unknown with beliefs.
With regard to being off topic..... I see this as an expansion of the topic, an opportunity for me to learn.
I appreciate the confidence Ego. Was it because you thought I was a Determinist or just because I like to yap about this stuff?
I do have issues with Harris' talk on free will and I'm a Harris fan. I listened to it a long time ago and thought he had some very big errors, but not the ones Dragline identified. Of course, I forget my thoughts at the time. I guess I need to listen to it again.
I do see how it could be possible physics plays out to be Deterministic, but I don't think we know if "god plays dice" or not at this point.
"Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control. The assumption is that each is busy constructing a picture of the world."
I disagree with this completely. They are both about control, but about controlling different things. Religion is about controlling people and science is about controlling our environment. I won't drag this out more, as this isn't really the thread for a religious discussion.
I do think stuff like the digit ratio are interesting and may influence us, but for me it's less Deterministic and more just potential. We can interrupt this potential with conscious thought and action. Thus, defeating Determinism.
I do have issues with Harris' talk on free will and I'm a Harris fan. I listened to it a long time ago and thought he had some very big errors, but not the ones Dragline identified. Of course, I forget my thoughts at the time. I guess I need to listen to it again.
I do see how it could be possible physics plays out to be Deterministic, but I don't think we know if "god plays dice" or not at this point.
"Science and religion serve different human needs – religion the need for meaning, science for control. The assumption is that each is busy constructing a picture of the world."
I disagree with this completely. They are both about control, but about controlling different things. Religion is about controlling people and science is about controlling our environment. I won't drag this out more, as this isn't really the thread for a religious discussion.
I do think stuff like the digit ratio are interesting and may influence us, but for me it's less Deterministic and more just potential. We can interrupt this potential with conscious thought and action. Thus, defeating Determinism.
"Dragline, I'm having trouble seeing the straw man you mentioned. Why would a focus on thoughts in the here-and-now make the argument a straw man? While I can envision the future and the past, I can only do so in the present, right?"
Well, to take his trivial example about thinking of a city, if you only look at the decision as a static point in time, as in this moment, it does appear to be random or "out of thin air".
But if you think about it as part of a dynamic system, then it is influenced by what came before. At some point in the past the thinker may have acquired knowledge by happenstance, but also may have chose to live in certain places or learn about certain places. This created memories and subconcious thought patterns, which led in some respect to the choice of the city that was picked. The thinker could not have chosen a city that he never knew about.
Contrast that with a child who had only lived in one place and just learned to talk. That person would have a much more limited possible set of responses to give.
A better model that some neuro-scientists use is the so-called "triune brain" model (see http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/ ... r_her.html), which allows for the idea that some thoughts or actions are made unconsciously or subconciously while others are made consciously and there is a great deal of interplay between the two. It also highlights the difference between the kind of machine-like reptilian brain, the limbic/instinctive mammalian and the higher order conscious or imaginative brain. A more behaviorally oriented but similar model from a different discipline would be Kahneman & Tversky's "Fast Brain/Slow Brain" model.
Harris's initial model seems to presume that all decisions are made subconciously and that the subconcious mind cannot be programmed by prior thought and actions, but really only by genetics and happenstance environmental factors. But then he seems to back away from that position later in the lecture. Because he never really defines his model, everything ends up getting kind of mushy.
In the end, the choices and thoughts made today influence and may circumscribe the potential thoughts of tomorrow -- with large elements of uncertainty to be sure. This calls for a dynamic model and not one where you only look at one static thought at a time as if it were a form of Walrasian economic equilibrium.
Well, to take his trivial example about thinking of a city, if you only look at the decision as a static point in time, as in this moment, it does appear to be random or "out of thin air".
But if you think about it as part of a dynamic system, then it is influenced by what came before. At some point in the past the thinker may have acquired knowledge by happenstance, but also may have chose to live in certain places or learn about certain places. This created memories and subconcious thought patterns, which led in some respect to the choice of the city that was picked. The thinker could not have chosen a city that he never knew about.
Contrast that with a child who had only lived in one place and just learned to talk. That person would have a much more limited possible set of responses to give.
A better model that some neuro-scientists use is the so-called "triune brain" model (see http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/ ... r_her.html), which allows for the idea that some thoughts or actions are made unconsciously or subconciously while others are made consciously and there is a great deal of interplay between the two. It also highlights the difference between the kind of machine-like reptilian brain, the limbic/instinctive mammalian and the higher order conscious or imaginative brain. A more behaviorally oriented but similar model from a different discipline would be Kahneman & Tversky's "Fast Brain/Slow Brain" model.
Harris's initial model seems to presume that all decisions are made subconciously and that the subconcious mind cannot be programmed by prior thought and actions, but really only by genetics and happenstance environmental factors. But then he seems to back away from that position later in the lecture. Because he never really defines his model, everything ends up getting kind of mushy.
In the end, the choices and thoughts made today influence and may circumscribe the potential thoughts of tomorrow -- with large elements of uncertainty to be sure. This calls for a dynamic model and not one where you only look at one static thought at a time as if it were a form of Walrasian economic equilibrium.
At some point in the past the thinker may have acquired knowledge by happenstance, but also may have chose to live in certain places or learn about certain places. This created memories and subconcious thought patterns, which led in some respect to the choice of the city that was picked.
But those "choices" to live in or learn about certain places would have been based on previous experiences. Many of the choices that led to those previous experiences would themselves have been the result of previous experiences. And so on back to the amount of testosterone exposure in the womb.
Recent neuroscientific studies have consistently found:
1) Ideas, thoughts and intentions bubble up out of the subconscious. We do not control the subconscious mind.
2) They enter consciousness too late for the conscious mind to be the cause of the action. It comes down to timing.
3) The conscious mind then formulates a story to explain the act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscie ... us_actions
I am going to reiterate that I do not like what this means. I love the idea of agency. I am the architect of my own destiny.... I control me... that kind of thing. This seems to short-circuit the idea of agency.
That said, I'll admit that I am in about as deep as I can swim for now.
Looking through the triune brain listing on wikipedia I get the impression that it was a model from the 1960s that has been discredited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_br ... _the_model
But I am open to looking at it differently.
The article points out that the conclusions of the research are subject to debate, mostly I would suspect because they are only measuring static or instantaneous data points.
My point was encapsulated in the caption to the monk in the first Wikepedia article: "A monk meditates. Human agency, the ability to affect the surrounding world, may be a result not so simply of conscious choice - but instead a result of training unconscious habits beforehand.[6]"
Its today's conscious training of the unconscious mind that you will have in your future that matters the most. That's what we are really free to do (or not and roll the dice). "We become what we think about" is the colloquial version.
I agree that the triune mind model is not a be-all or end-all. The point there is that science is about models, and if your model is not well-defined, you are not doing science but merely philosophy or sophistry. The model described by these experiments is extremely limited largely because of these temporal limitations.
Here's a practical application of training the subconscious, which is also known as forming new habits: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/05/ ... imization/
One of the problems with Harris's ill-defined model is that it does not explain why some people form helpful and useful habits and others do not. Harris would likely say its merely by happenstance or genetics. That's not a very defensible position.
My point was encapsulated in the caption to the monk in the first Wikepedia article: "A monk meditates. Human agency, the ability to affect the surrounding world, may be a result not so simply of conscious choice - but instead a result of training unconscious habits beforehand.[6]"
Its today's conscious training of the unconscious mind that you will have in your future that matters the most. That's what we are really free to do (or not and roll the dice). "We become what we think about" is the colloquial version.
I agree that the triune mind model is not a be-all or end-all. The point there is that science is about models, and if your model is not well-defined, you are not doing science but merely philosophy or sophistry. The model described by these experiments is extremely limited largely because of these temporal limitations.
Here's a practical application of training the subconscious, which is also known as forming new habits: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/05/ ... imization/
One of the problems with Harris's ill-defined model is that it does not explain why some people form helpful and useful habits and others do not. Harris would likely say its merely by happenstance or genetics. That's not a very defensible position.
It's funny, the thing that initially pissed me off about meditation - and still does to some extent - is the passivity. Every time I hear someone say, "Sit quietly and watch the thoughts as they present themselves," I want to scream.... NO, I don't want to watch the damn things! I want to mold them.
As I understand it, the experience of watching thoughts is just that, an experience. One that shapes future action. Rather than training the unconscious mind, sitting and watching allows me to become aware of all the crap it throws at me. A feedback loop, feeding new experiences back into the sausage grinder so that it then delivers a better quality product the next time.
That seems to fit with your monk quote.
As I understand it, the experience of watching thoughts is just that, an experience. One that shapes future action. Rather than training the unconscious mind, sitting and watching allows me to become aware of all the crap it throws at me. A feedback loop, feeding new experiences back into the sausage grinder so that it then delivers a better quality product the next time.
That seems to fit with your monk quote.
I'd say that meditation would be only one well-known example of self-programming. And its more directed at achieving a calm or desirable future mental state than inducing creative thought.
I've found keeping a journal and just thinking about or writing down goals to be more practical and useful on a day-to-day basis for self-programming.
And in our society where one is constantly bombarded by various stimuli, half of the battle seems to be just eliminating unhelpful exposures.
I've found keeping a journal and just thinking about or writing down goals to be more practical and useful on a day-to-day basis for self-programming.
And in our society where one is constantly bombarded by various stimuli, half of the battle seems to be just eliminating unhelpful exposures.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am