Neuro-Cooperative Mechanics

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Mon Aug 12 21:15:57 EST 2002


Meanwhile, with respect to what I'm doing, what do folks think I'm
talking about when I say "it's Difficult"?

I'm not 'oblivious'.

It's just that there's needless Savagery out-there, 'just' because
folks don't understand how nervous systems process information.

It's no contest.

With respect to the rest, I 'take-it-on-the-chin', as best I can.

ken

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>I tried to access the study, but it's for-fee, and I'm broke.
Perhaps
>I can find it in a  Library, tomorrow.
>
>From what you quoted, it doesn't [yet] make much sense because the
>task' is actually a delayed-discrimination task, with respect to
>stated expectations.
>
>Phineas Gage would've scored poorly too, but his lesions were in
>prefrontal cortex.
>
>The 'relative-familiarity' thing is also problematic.
>
>Everyone knows of stories with respect to tourists' cultural faux
>pas, which are the same sort of thing, and, on the other hand, the
>task of understanding an experimenter's directions is generic stuff
>that everyone learns, with one's Parents in the 'role' of the one
who
>gives direction.
>
>I'm only online for a couple of more days, but I'll try to get to
the
>bottom of this before I have to log-off.
>
>Either the 'blurb' is 'slanted', or there's something 'amiss' in the
>study itself.
>
>I expect what's actually involved is a focused 'disconnect' re PF
Cx,
>and not a specifically-limbic thing.
>
>I'll try to get-back on this tomorrow .
>
>k. p. collins
>
>Ian Goddard wrote in message <3d585bfb.166425528 at news.erols.com>...
>>Possibly seen as supplemental to (Neuro-Cooperation):
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3d35e5d2.340387416%40news.erol
s
>.com
>>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992663
>>
>>
>>Brain's 'cheat detector' is revealed
>>
>>22:00 12 August 02
>>Emma Young
>>
>>Part of the human brain is dedicated to detecting cheats, say
>>evolutionary psychologists, after a study with a brain-damaged man.
>>
>>"We think it develops in all normal individuals, and that it
>develops
>>in part because our brains were selected to develop this
>competence,"
>>says John Tooby at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
>>
>>Tooby and his colleagues studied a man who suffered accidental
>damage
>>to the limbic system, a brain region involved in processing
>emotional
>>and social information. RM, as he is referred to, performed as well
>>as other people on one set of reasoning problems, did much worse on
>>problems specifically designed to test reasoning about social
>>exchanges.
>>
>>At its simplest, social exchange runs along the lines of "you
>scratch
>>my back and I'll scratch yours". Previous work has shown that
>people,
>>and some animals, are extremely good at keeping a check of who owes
>>who within a group - and at spotting and punishing cheaters.
>>
>>Researchers had proposed that general reasoning abilities could
>>account for this. But RM's deficit suggests that detecting social
>>cheaters depends on specialised neural circuitry, the team says.
>>
>>Their conclusion is "robust," says Nigel Nicholson, an evolutionary
>>psychologist and director of the Centre for Organisational Research
>>the London Business School. "It's essential we have trusting
>>relationships with people in communities where we are highly
>>interdependent for survival and reproduction. Cheat detection is
>>very important," he adds.
>>
>>Separable component
>>
>>The first problems given to RM and the 37 non-brain-damaged
controls
>>concerned so-called precaution rules. For example: "If you work
with
>>toxic chemicals, you have to wear a safety mask." The second tested
>>social contracts, for example: "If you go canoeing on the lake, you
>>have to have a clean bunk house."
>>
>>RM recorded a score of 70 per cent on the precaution rule tests -
>the
>>same as the controls. But he scored only 39 per cent on the social
>>contract tests, compared with 70 per cent for the non-brain damaged
>>people.
>>
>>Identical tests on two other people with brain damage similar to
>BM's,
>>but with a slightly different pattern of damage, showed that their
>>social contract reasoning was unimpaired.
>>
>>"RM's differential impairment indicates that being able to detect
>>potential cheaters may be a separable component of the human mind,"
>>the researchers conclude in the journal Proceedings of the National
>>Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>Utterly unfamiliar
>>
>>However, if a region of the brain has evolved to specialise in
cheat
>>detection, it should be present in all people, the team reasoned.
>>Most experiments are performed on people living in modern, western
>>societies.
>>
>>So they studied people living in traditional, non-developed
>>communities in the Amazonian region of Ecuador. And they found that
>>these people were equally proficient at social exchange tasks, even
>>when the problems concerned social rules that were unfamiliar to
>them.
>>
>>"What is quite amazing about their performance on cheater detection
>>is that it flies in the face of all ordinary ideas about learning a
>>higher level cognitive skill," Tooby told New Scientist. "People
are
>>just as good at utterly unfamiliar rules as they are with rules
that
>>are personally and culturally highly familiar."
>>
>>Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
>>(DOI: 10.1073/pnas.122352699 and DOI:10.1073/pnas122352999)
>>
>>
>>  Out-of-Body Explanation: http://IanGoddard.net/paranorm.htm
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list