Studying human psychology turned me into a political liberal

Advertisements

When Exact Replications Are Too Exact: The Lucky-Bounce-Test for Pairs of Exact Replication Studies

Replicability-Index

Imagine an NBA player has an 80% chance to make one free throw. What is the chance that he makes both free throws? The correct answer is 64% (80% * 80%).

Now consider the possibility that it is possible to distinguish between two types of free throws. Some free throws are good; they don’t touch the rim and make a swishing sound when they go through the net (all net). The other free throws bounce of the rim and go in (rattling in).

What is the probability that an NBA player with an 80% free throw percentage makes a free throw that is all net or rattles in? It is more likely that an NBA player with an 80% free throw average makes a perfect free throw because a free throw that rattles in could easily have bounded the wrong way, which would lower the free throw percentage. To achieve…

View original post 2,054 more words

Employers not handing out an opportunity or an award; they’re solving a practical problem

…when packaging your resume, think about it from the viewpoint of the company hiring you. This is not an opportunity they hope to grant to a deserving individual. It’s not an award for which they need to locate the most promising candidate. It’s a practical problem they’re looking to solve: They have work that needs to be done, questions to be asked, research to be conducted, and not enough people to do it. Their goal is to find someone who can do the work, cause few problems, need little training, be a friendly companion during long nights in the lab, and occasionally have a flash of brilliance. Think about how you can fill their need, not the other way around. Communicate that in your resume—and your cover letter, if you persist in the delusion that people read those.

Regrettable Resumes, Part 2

Inter-subjectively testable

Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities, as in the case of repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested—in principle—by anyone. … Only by such repetition can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated ‘coincidence’, but with events which, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively testable.

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Honey is sweet because we like it

Honey is sweet because we like it, not “we like it because honey is sweet.” There’s nothing intrinsically sweet about honey. If you looked at glucose molecules till you were blind, you wouldn’t see why they tasted sweet. You have to look in our brains to understand why they’re sweet. So if you think first there was sweetness, and then we evolved to like sweetness, you’ve got it backwards; that’s just wrong. It’s the other way round. Sweetness was born with the wiring which evolved.

Dan Dennett, “Cute, sexy, sweet, funny”