![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/913b482d-9012-449f-bc87-b1f4463e7154.jpeg)
Sorry where is the ‘neuroscience’ in the article?
Sorry where is the ‘neuroscience’ in the article?
Wouldn’t it be more concerning if it was speeding up?
He’s been firmly out of Trek since Enterprise.
And Rick the Dick Berman said fuck no, in fact here’s a blonde bombshell in a catsuit. Fuck you.
And when it does, how would you even know?
For now…
Roger Penrose was brilliant, but he got a lot of flack for his Orch-OR theorem which is being alluded to here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
I still don’t understand what problem his hypothesis was trying to solve though.
That seems somewhat unrelated to this paper about foraging societies.
If I can quote the authors:
We caution against ethnographic revisionism that projects Westernized conceptions of labor and its value onto foraging societies.
They’re the first to complain that they aren’t being included.
Fascinating. It doesn’t look like they controlled for height/weight so it’s not surprising that the grip strength of TW was so much higher than for CW. Agree with their conclusion that a larger cohort is needed for a longitudinal study rather than a cross-sectional one.
Aren’t most of them about to lose their seats? I can see the remnant tory party begging for a deal if it goes as badly as some polls are predicting.
How did this prick make selection?
Come on now fella, who his grandparents were pumped by is hardly of relevance here.
“We’ve left Normandy by mistake!”
We never should have stopped at Berlin.
Well this paper isn’t about intelligence or psychology, it’s about physiology. Reaction times and rhythmic anticipation tests are all quite well-grounded and established tests.
Secondly, I’ve had a brief scan of that 3.5hr long video and dipped in and out of a few places are familiar to me. Straight away I notice she’s reading out the conclusions from the Anderson paper on Hunter-Gatherers that came out last year (to huge media attention) but which was not well received by anthropologists who went through the stats and found the whole thing to be a biased mess (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497?dgcid=author). It would be unfair to blame the original authors since they were all (and I believe still are) undergraduates and so the PI should’ve been more rigorous. Then I briefly dipped into her ‘debunking’ of the selfish gene where she opens with the astonishing take that bipedism isn’t a heritable trait…this is not the voice of an expert and there are better critiques of the shortcomings in evopsych out there.
Well Rishi I was on the fence but fuck me you’ve sold me.