SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-seem-to-recall-something-like-this dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Unrelated events are linked in memory when they happen close together
When two events occur within a brief window of time they become linked in memory, such that calling forth memory of one helps retrieve memory for the other event, according to research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. This happens even when temporal proximity is the only feature that the two events share.
"Our research shows that people are constantly recording information about the order in which events happen, even if those events are unrelated. They can then use the order to help search memory," explains psychological scientist M. Karl Healey of Michigan State University.
In one online study, Healey and coauthor Mitchell G.Uitvlugt collected and analyzed data following Election Day in 2016. The study participants had 7 minutes to recall as many election-related news stories as they could -- for each story, they also drafted a short newspaper-style headline.
Healey and Uitvlugt identified actual news stories that corresponded with the headlines generated by the participants, noting the date that the stories appeared. For their analyses, the researchers did not include stories that were not associated with specific election-related events. This process yielded 7,759 headlines from 855 participants.
The researchers then calculated a lag score that measured the transition, in days, from one headline in a participant's story sequence to the next.
The results showed that participants tended to recall stories in time-based clusters: Short transitions between stories (0 to 10 days) were much more common than would be expected according to chance. Furthermore, long transitions of more than 50 days were less frequent than one would expect by chance. The analyses showed that what participants remembered wasn't due to news events naturally clustering close together in time but rather the clustering of stories together in memory.
Is this what makes positive reinforcement effective?
(Score: 3, Touché) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 19 2018, @09:40PM (7 children)
I don't respect your voluntary agreement that you own your property. It's actually mine. Who's to say I'm wrong? You, the guy with shitpiles all over your lawn?
Your entire ideology is built on a lie. All of it. Some of mine is, but your delusion that mutual 2 party agreement creates permanent universally recognized ownership is insane.
Utter insanity. Complete batshit. Go home and rethink your life from the bottom up level nutso.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @09:54PM (6 children)
You can interact with another individual in any way that you wish. But, again, as already stated, it is dangerous to behave in a poorly defined way, because the consequences will also be poorly defined. There is profit in agreement, and that is why agreements have value and are therefore largely "anti-fragile".
I never claimed "permanent universally recognized ownership". In fact, I spoke explicitly of iteration, including negotation, enforcement, and dispute resolution. I am the one who is explicitly recognizing that utopia is a fantasy, and that because men are not angels, one should avoid a monopoly (particularly a monopoly that is imposed violently).
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday December 19 2018, @11:04PM (5 children)
There will always be a strongest individual or strongest group. Ultimately your contracts will have to be enforced by it/them or the contracts are meaningless.
That individual or group will claim a monopoly on force and become the ruler. This is unavoidable.
The better forms of government attempt to mitigate this by making everyone part of that strongest group.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 19 2018, @11:21PM (4 children)
What keeps Tyranny at bay is competition; what keeps the United States on the straight and narrow, despite its immense power, is not democracy but rather the fact that the citizenry is well armed, and poses a deadly competition to would-be tyrants in the centralized government(s).
That is to say, it is not the form of the government that is important, but rather the underlying separation of powers, the most real of which is the threat of violent revolution. After all, as we all know, Hitler was ultimately democratically elected, as were many dictators. This is why many Jews are vehement supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
You contradict yourself:
That makes no sense.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday December 20 2018, @03:51AM
I deliberately never said democracy. I said "better forms of government". You are projecting.
You also take nuanced statements and rephrase them as absolutes.
Neither of those statements is what I wrote.
The current government in most countries will not brook any challenge to it being the ultimate authority. But most of those countries are happy for their citizens to be part of that society, and to institute a more or less fair system of rights and duties as part of citizenship.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:23AM (2 children)
In other words, as capital is accumulated into fewer and fewer hands, the result is a lack of competition and therefore tyranny. This is the inherent contradiction that makes capitalism's descent into a fascism inevitable.
I probably won't get to Proudhon before the end of the year, but I'm hoping he has something more interesting to say than you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @04:33AM
Ever more bureaucratic inefficiency and waste, thus setting the stage for the next step.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20 2018, @05:15AM
You're admitting that capitalism will fail... by resulting in government.
Not exactly a stellar case for yourself.