kulongoski.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpDwMusgGE

"thinking of things like 'the world' and 'the highway of life' are a little too absolute to be practical. it makes trying new things too insignificant"
-amm


"we’re piping liquefied natural gas through the soil, gaseous clouds of coal dust through the pipes of lungs and greenhouse fumes through arctic walls while hot air pipes through shards of clay drenched in drought, and exacerbated monsoon seasons make new pipelines through crops and homes and fashion environmental refugees.

"immigration lines pummel through desert through mountains because poverty does not recognize boundaries and when survival is hard we fall into lines to trick ourselves into thinking that we are leaving these volatile seasons behind, but don’t think that your cultural walk is distinct from the walk of industrial revolution whose footprint stamps over the pipelines of refugees seeking life beyond inhospitable domain because we are what’s gotten us here.

"climate chaos charges in waves but waves are crashed into lines and redirected back to the sea where this all begins and ends and I feel as though if we were more directly evolved from fish we would know this – that when streamlining pipelines get dirty and breakdown they are not suitable for rebuilding our home.

"we can’t break this by putting down any more pipelines. human lines are our green sanctuary and the invincible indispensable inexorable force against the chaos of fuel. we are cultivators and innovators tide breakers and bullion bulwarks rising higher and louder than the rising tides, against the pipelines. "


- ride your bike, wear slippers, flush selectively, talk to your senators.

empty thoughts VI

6. Hare and Tomasello (1998) speak to the differences between the way wolves and dogs respond to human gaze cues. Previous studies suggest that the ability of dogs to respond to the gaze of humans is a derivative of their ancestral skill of reading behavior of fellow hunters. Contrarily, wolves, even when reared by humans don’t exhibit such skill. The domesticated dog line has been evolving for thousands of years. It is, of yet, not conclusive as to when dog domestication began. Mitochondrial DNA says the wolf and dog lines split around 100,000 years ago. It is my perspective on this issue that for the wolf and dog genetic lines to split, there had to have been a large era of domestication that occurred first. Historical perspective entices me to infer that dogs are more evolutionarily equipped to respond to a human gaze cue than a wolf, who is more equipped to respond to peer gaze cues or hunting posture. I suppose my reaction, then, to H & T’s reference is that I don’t feel that it portrays anything novel to contribute to their article. Of course wolves don’t respond as well as dogs to the gaze cues of humans; being reared by humans does not replace thousands of years of species domestication and divergence. During their process of domestication, the skill of recognizing peer behavioral cues must have evolved to respond more directly to human (master) cues. I'm bored with their thoughts...

empty thoughts V

as i sit here in class wishing that Miller would become as awesome a professor as he is a person, but accepting that, tragically, this will never be...

5. Oh Steven Pinker, how I treasure you...

Pinker thinks grammar development is a support for non-selectionist theories of language development. He says that grammar is more complicated than it need be for the purposes of hunter gatherer lifestyle, with which I agree. However, I also think that when grammar/language was in initial stages of evolutionary development, it was probably exactly as complicated as it need be for that purpose. I like to think of the late H. s. sapiens as still being hunter-gatherers, and that as our hunting skills evolved to become more complicated, so did our language. This being said, I don’t think that the present complexity of language is an argument against the contribution of natural selection to language development. It’s just as conceivable an idea to me that just as our hunting skills suffer from a severe deficit inflicted by our obsession with making our lives easier and our physical selves more lazy, so has language diverged from being purely a survival tool into… well, Sheharazade on steroids. Then again, some of us have become so exotically lackadaisical with language that it's also become somewhat useless as a tool of any sort.

empty thoughts IV

4. Whyyyyyyy is it obvious that because autistic children have an impairment in only a particular type of reasoning that one type evolved separately from the other? Explain to me how this is in any way a solid framework to make this broad of a conclusion with any certainty.

empty thoughts III

3. Fiona Scott and Simon Baron-Cohen conclude that the deficit in autism is due to an impairment of psychological reasoning, as opposed to logical or analogical reasoning. This seems to suggest a deficit in “mindblindness,” not Gestalt perception, as addressed by the article. Because mindblindness is defined by Baron-Cohen in another article as an inability to be aware of what is in another person’s mind, it becomes a separate issue from Gestalt perception entirely. The logical and analogical tests demonstrated that autistic children can reason with representations of representations, and identify relation between relations, which suggests that their perceptive grouping is intact, which is clearly not the case. I don’t get it.

The authors say that their evidence shows the deficit to be due to m-representation; the inability to represent and agent’s attitude toward something. They do not speak of which of their results support this, but continue to say that autism is more likely due to the child’s inability to represent mental states...metarepresentation? What is this jump they are making to conclude that this is an impairment of psychological reasoning? It makes more sense to me that an inability to represent mental states would reflect a deficit in analogical reasoning.

I would have appreciated a more direct response to their three main hypotheses. Speculating the three intelligence paradigms of logical, analogical and psychological reasoning were a strong approach to the question of whether autistic children are impaired selectively in psychological and not in non-social tasks. However, I think the importance of their conclusions was missed, and their discussion generally lacking, and did not address the relation of their various tests to their hypotheses... Neither do they definitively support or object to Cosmides’ theory which is the title of their paper. It seems that since Scott and Baron-Cohen concluded that social intelligence has evolved separately from non-social intelligence, they would discuss Cosmides’ theory that intelligence evolved to solve social problems.

so basically, my disappointment reflects that which I typically hold toward psychology papers... pity.

empty thoughts II

2. “The ability to categorize is what makes it possible to use previous experience to guide the interpretation of new experience, for without categorization, memory is virtually useless” (Jackendoff 1987).

What kind of function would memory have if it were not categorized? Would memory be retrievable, and in what form? There must be some evolutionary reason to have uncategorized memory, because before memory could become associative, it makes sense that it would have begun with a single category with all information lumped together…

empty thoughts I

1. one of the keystone deficits of autism is the inability to filter visual/auditory stimuli into hierarchical importance. evolutionarily speaking, i wonder what it is about “goal-, ancestral- and expertise-derived criteria” that is lost on these victims. a way in which autistic people cope with this lack of filtering is to focus obsessively on a single thing to override all the other stimuli they cannot make sense of at once. why do they preferentially focus on inanimate objects (banging head against the wall, counting toothpicks, etc.) when animate objects are more crucial for survival? Is there support for the counter hypothesis (“no mechanisms for deploying attention to animate objects”)?

*New et al 2007. Category specific attention...