Re: Mechanisms for learning
[{"sender": "Joscha 82h", "recipients": ["Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]"], "timestamp": "7/23/2016 7:02:30 AM", "subject": "Re: Mechanisms for learning", "body": "Some thoughts I meant to send back for a long time:\n\nno worry, if I understand correctly you are suggesting there are layers 1 through N. Lets call them L1 - Ln. There are times T1-Tn and then conjecture that changing the time correlations (by genetic switch or other method), you might be able to make blacks smarter by changing the time for motor layer development and changing the time for other layers. Like telomeres for the cell, are there equivalents for the layers. As you talked about culling the unused neurons in each layer, each neuron in each layer would get different (kill yourself if you are not being used instructions).\n\nExactly. I looked up the statistics, black kids in the US have slower cognitive development (and never catch up), which the study of course attributed to social factors without any evidence, and they had faster motor development! I suspect this means their brains are slower at learning high-level concepts, because the low-level structures are optimized for a shorter time. But they will keep the lead in motor development, because it is easier to learn, and they have more time and attention to practice once they get the structures in place.\n\nIt could also be that they have an additional set of learning directives in place that adapts them better to a more hunting/running style of life, whereas the Europeans had to adapt for identifying long-term seasonal patterns, delayed gratification for agriculture etc.\n\nand CONCEPTS could be layer to layer communication. Are gender differences also a matter of time, and structure of interactions.\n\nI suspect gender differences are mostly motivational, i.e. we have a reward system for all the different social and cognitive needs, which makes us receive different kinds of pleasure and pain, thereby pay attention and learn. You cannot learn what does not attract your attention. Women tend to find abstract systems, conflicts and mechanisms intrinsically boring. Most women in computer science do not write programs because they enjoy solving puzzles, but because they want to help people, get approval etc. There are almost no women in math, because it does not help people or yield social attention.\n\nMen tend to find elaborate social relations boring. If there is no pleasure in observing and empathizing with people, one will not have good social cognition.\n\nIQ is not the only meaningful difference. Chinese pay an inordinate amount of attention to authority. I suspect historically, the authorities tended to kill them a lot if they did not. Jews tend be intellectually independent and anti-authoritarian, which might make them creative and inventive in ways that are hard to find in Asia.\n\nAt the moment, I think speed/quality of brain development plus motivational system are the key to understanding both mind and individual differences. Important part of human language might be the result in a motivational need to discover/invent grammatical structure, which as a side effect makes us interested in music. It would mean that Chomsky’s life long hypothesis, that people have a special circuit for grammatical language, is wrong. They might be GENERAL learners, just like Gorillas, but with a strong motivational urge to build"}]