Unexpected Consequences

[Traveler]

 

Because I deal with artificial intelligence with my work as a consultant – I try to stay current on various studies that deal with intelligence and application science.  Because artificial intelligence is directly dependent on “learning” I pay particular attention to studies of the various levels of learning.  For the benefit of this post I am attempting to draw attention to a specific element concerning learning – without becoming too confusing.  In essence, I am trying to make this post short enough to be worth reading – but not so short as to leave out too many essential elements.

The lowest level of learning is in layman terms a conditioned response as per the example of Pavlov’s Dog.  The next higher than lowest level of learning is basically what we call – memorization.   Sometimes this is called “monkey see – monkey do”.   The highest level of learning is basically open ended but for these higher levels of “intelligence” in humans there is a very interesting ability of projection based in cognitive substitutions – or if you will – the ability to apply what is learned in a particular cognitive scenario or condition to other scenarios and conditions that have or appear to have some similarities.   These projections are called executive reasoning functions.  About 14 years ago, the National Geographic Mag ran a series of articles that summarized several studies concerning human intelligence and brain development.   One of the major conclusions of these articles – is that human children learn very differently than do adults.  Dah!  Any parent that has raised children and learned anything from their experience knows this – or at least they should have.  How well they understand the difference will have a significant impact on their success to teach their children to become responsible adults.

I will try to make this easy – Children learn best by example.  Children are wired to be keen observers, remember and replicate what they observe.  This is why children are so quick to master language.  But efforts to apply logic and reason with a child will drive an adult nuts.  Not because there is something wrong with their children but because children do not complete their brain development that handles executive functions until they are at least 25.

There is another peculiarity about human brain development – That is that skipping over learning function sequences can leave an adult unable to apply certain cognitive projection functions.  Because of the impotence of teaching children beginning at an early age – If they are not taught – they have a good probability of having problem as an adult.  I believe this to be a strong argument for stable homes where parents are engaged in demonstrating to children how to act and behave (remember that children learn best when given examples) – especially how to problem solve as adults.  What children do not learn as children they may not be able to apply as adults.  Is any of this making sense?

Here is a problem – Parents that do not teach their children (by example) what is acceptable and what is not acceptable (right and wrong – attend church – don’t attend church – how to treat friends and family – how not to treat friends and family) it is possible and likely they will not be capable of making such choices as adults.  I am concerned and I believe the unintended consequence of letting children decide later what or how to behave as adults – what they ought to be or do and what they should not ought to be or do - when they become adults is turning an entire generation into psychopaths.

The symptoms of a psychopath are as follows:

Lack of guilt/remorse

Lack of empathy

Lack of deep emotional attachments

Narcissism

Superficial charm

Dishonesty

Manipulativeness

Reckless risk-taking

 

BTW - 93% of current known adult psychopaths are in the criminal justice system.

 

The Traveler

•  

   

Edited July 26, 2017 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The symptoms of a psychopath are as follows:
Lack of guilt/remorse
Lack of empathy
Lack of deep emotional attachments
Narcissism
Superficial charm
Dishonesty
Manipulativeness
Reckless risk-taking

Just making sure - you need more than one, right?  I just ooze so much dang superficial charm I'm worried that it counts as enough...

Edited July 26, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Mike]

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Here is a problem – Parents that do not teach their children (by example) what is acceptable and what is not acceptable (right and wrong – attend church – don’t attend church – how to treat friends and family – how not to treat friends and family) it is possible and likely they will not be capable of making such choices as adults.  I am concerned and I believe the unintended consequence of letting children decide later what or how to behave as adults – what they ought to be or do and what they should not ought to be or do - when they become adults is turning an entire generation into psychopaths.

I would at the very least change this: "... it is possible and likely *in some circumstances* they will not be capable of making such choices as adults." (I have additional objections, but I'll wait.)

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

On 7/26/2017 at 4:06 PM, Traveler said:

I will try to make this easy – Children learn best by example.  Children are wired to be keen observers, remember and replicate what they observe.  This is why children are so quick to master language.  

Yes, children learn by example. And, yes, children are observers. They remember, and they imitate much of what they observe. But the same is true of adults. I don't believe that these traits explain human language-learning, however, and I think it's a stretch to say that children are (so) quick to *master* language. 

Without regard at the moment for individual language-learning proficiencies beyond the average, or prodigies, etc., I submit that when at least three environmental conditions are present and similar [degree of saturation in the language, absence or minimization of distracting forces, and the number of years they have to devote their attentions to the task of learning said language] children and adults tend to demonstrate pretty much the same learning curve whether the language is primary or secondary.

[bytebear]

Quote

The symptoms of a psychopath are as follows:
Lack of guilt/remorse
Lack of empathy
Lack of deep emotional attachments
Narcissism
Superficial charm
Dishonesty
Manipulativeness
Reckless risk-taking

I had no idea that all my exes were a psychopaths.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I had no idea that all my exes were a psychopaths.

Everyone says their ex was a psychopath. You ever met this girl @Backroads? Seriously pyscho bro. 

[Guest]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:17 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Just making sure - you need more than one, right?  I just ooze so much dang superficial charm I'm worried that it counts as enough...

I don't know if charm needs to be deeper.  We don't want a charming gall bladder.

[Guest]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:06 PM, Traveler said:

The symptoms of a psychopath are as follows:
Lack of guilt/remorse
Lack of empathy
Lack of deep emotional attachments
Narcissism
Superficial charm
Dishonesty
Manipulativeness
Reckless risk-taking

The problem with this list is that nearly all human beings do pretty much all these things.  It's just a question of degree.

So, are nearly all human beings psychotic at some level?

[NeuroTypical]

Well, kind of.  Guilt and remorse, on some level, is a function of the light of Christ.  AKA, "a conscience".  Some people are really good at not admitting guilt, at hiding (maybe even from themselves) remorse for things, but they still have them. 

A psychotic is a dial tone in this regard.  They test the effectiveness of a new hand-railing on a flight of stairs, by pushing a ten year old down one to see if they break.  Then they're genuinely surprised when people throw a fit about it.  Did you want to know if the hand railing works, or don't you?

Genuine psychotic mental illness is more than just acting like an evil jerk.  It's like trying to walk normally with just one leg, except you literally do not possess the ability to feel remorse or guilt. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, kind of.  Guilt and remorse, on some level, is a function of the light of Christ.  AKA, "a conscience".  Some people are really good at not admitting guilt, at hiding (maybe even from themselves) remorse for things, but they still have them. 

A psychotic is a dial tone in this regard.  They test the effectiveness of a new hand-railing on a flight of stairs, by pushing a ten year old down one to see if they break.  Then they're genuinely surprised when people throw a fit about it.  Did you want to know if the hand railing works, or don't you?

Genuine psychotic mental illness is more than just acting like an evil jerk.  It's like trying to walk normally with just one leg, except you literally do not possess the ability to feel remorse or guilt. 

In all seriousness it's a word thrown around way too easily. I really do see women saying their ex husband was a "narcissist" just because he was maybe selfish or cheated on her. In reality a true "psychopath" or "narcissist" is fairly rare and you (generic) probably don't have the psychological training to properly identify one. 

Edited July 28, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Mike said:

Without regard at the moment for individual language-learning proficiencies beyond the average, or prodigies, etc., I submit that when at least three environmental conditions are present and similar [degree of saturation in the language, absence or minimization of distracting forces, and the number of years they have to devote their attentions to the task of learning said language] children and adults tend to demonstrate pretty much the same learning curve whether the language is primary or secondary.

I disagree.  At least when it comes to language.

Learning a language is not just learning how to say things in that language.  Learning a language comes with cultural learning and muscular development.  At this point in my life, I've lived in the States more than I've lived in the Philippines.  I can speak all the languages I learned as a child in perfect accent because I learned it from their native speakers.  I learned English from a Filipino so I still speak English in the Filipino accent even living with a surfer-accented American for almost 20 years and trying to get rid of my Filipino accent.  My accent gets more pronounced (unconsciously) when I'm speaking English in the Philippines.  I gave a speech in the Philippines in English that was recorded.  I was shocked at how deep my accent was in that speech!

That's why I truly believe something wild happens at the MTC.  Every non-Filipino Missionary that I have met in the Philippines all spoke the native language in the native accent.  And they speak it without a trace of having translated an English sentence in their heads.  You can tell because the sentence structure is very consistent with the native thinking.  That is amazing to me because it is rare.  I'll give you Kyle Jennermann - a Canadian who has embarked on a Becoming Filipino journey for almost 3 years now.  Yes, he can speak the native language but he still speaks it with his own foreign accent and you can still tell that he THINKS English and translates it in his head into the native language.

I have lived in the US long enough that I have now started thinking in English - I even dream in English.  But I still can't speak English with the American bending of vowels although the way I build my paragraphs are in the manner of Americans.  But, when I go to my mother's hometown, I immediately (without conscious thought) start thinking in that language.

Now, my native tongue has a lot of Spanish influence on it.  I learned Spanish in my late teens.  Spanish somehow came naturally.   It was easy to learn.

So what this says to me... children learn to think through their experiences as children and this projects to their every action as adults which can impact everything they do as adults - either making adult learning (change) harder or easier.

Edited July 28, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The problem with this list is that nearly all human beings do pretty much all these things.  It's just a question of degree.

So, are nearly all human beings psychotic at some level?

I think what makes one a psychopath is that they can't change when they learn better.  It's like an addict - they continue to do bad things even knowing it's bad.  It's like they can't help it?

[Guest MormonGator]

I've been thinking about these terms for awhile, it's interesting that it was brought up here. Humans are complex creatures and capable of both wonderful behavior and hideous behavior. I do not buy that 'everyone is capable of anything', but sometimes good people can do bad things.  For example, a doctor might perform life saving surgery on a monthly basis. If you talk to his patients, he's a hero and a wonderful man. However he's sleeping with three nurses and has a wife and four kids. If you talk to the nurses or the wife, he's a narcissist and monster. A cop might use her body as a human shield to save a child from gunfire. But she's stealing evidence from the evidence room to support a nasty cocaine problem. Who we think is a "psychopath" largely depends on who we speak to. 

Sure, 1% of the population is truly sociopathic and capable of anything. People like @Carborendum. But other than that, I think people are a mix of good and bad choices. 

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I've been thinking about these terms for awhile, it's interesting that it was brought up here. Humans are complex creatures and capable of both wonderful behavior and hideous behavior. I do not buy that 'everyone is capable of anything', but sometimes good people can do bad things.  For example, a doctor might perform life saving surgery on a monthly basis. If you talk to his patients, he's a hero and a wonderful man. However he's sleeping with three nurses and has a wife and four kids. If you talk to the nurses or the wife, he's a narcissist and monster. A cop might use her body as a human shield to save a child from gunfire. But she's stealing evidence from the evidence room to support a nasty cocaine problem. Who we think is a "psychopath" largely depends on who we speak to. 

Sure, 1% of the population is truly sociopathic and capable of anything. People like @Carborendum. But other than that, I think people are a mix of good and bad choices. 

Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology, explained this in his interview with Joe Rogan - the line of between good and evil is in every person's heart.  The capacity for evil, therefore, is an instinctive presence in each of us that ensures our survival as a species.  As a Mormon, I see this as the natural man.  A lot of times, soldiers who get PTSD after coming home get this mental break when they can't reconcile their capacity to do terrible things that surfaces in war with being a good person.  A lot of times, great leaders are those who recognizes their capacity to do evil and realizes they can channel that power for good to triumph.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I've been thinking about these terms for awhile, it's interesting that it was brought up here. Humans are complex creatures and capable of both wonderful behavior and hideous behavior. I do not buy that 'everyone is capable of anything', but sometimes good people can do bad things.  For example, a doctor might perform life saving surgery on a monthly basis. If you talk to his patients, he's a hero and a wonderful man. However he's sleeping with three nurses and has a wife and four kids. If you talk to the nurses or the wife, he's a narcissist and monster. A cop might use her body as a human shield to save a child from gunfire. But she's stealing evidence from the evidence room to support a nasty cocaine problem. Who we think is a "psychopath" largely depends on who we speak to. 

Sure, 1% of the population is truly sociopathic and capable of anything. People like @Carborendum. But other than that, I think people are a mix of good and bad choices. 

I resent that comment.  I'm not 1 in a 100.  How about 1 in a million? I mean, you DID say I was capable of anything.  Why, yes.  Yes, I am.  Thank you very much.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Guest

[Mike]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree.  At least when it comes to language.

Learning a language is not just learning how to say things in that language.  Learning a language comes with cultural learning and muscular development.  At this point in my life, I've lived in the States more than I've lived in the Philippines.  I can speak all the languages I learned as a child in perfect accent because I learned it from their native speakers.  I learned English from a Filipino so I still speak English in the Filipino accent even living with a surfer-accented American for almost 20 years and trying to get rid of my Filipino accent.  My accent gets more pronounced (unconsciously) when I'm speaking English in the Philippines.  I gave a speech in the Philippines in English that was recorded.  I was shocked at how deep my accent was in that speech!

That's why I truly believe something wild happens at the MTC.  Every non-Filipino Missionary that I have met in the Philippines all spoke the native language in the native accent.  And they speak it without a trace of having translated an English sentence in their heads.  You can tell because the sentence structure is very consistent with the native thinking.  That is amazing to me because it is rare.  I'll give you Kyle Jennermann - a Canadian who has embarked on a Becoming Filipino journey for almost 3 years now.  Yes, he can speak the native language but he still speaks it with his own foreign accent and you can still tell that he THINKS English and translates it in his head into the native language.

I have lived in the US long enough that I have now started thinking in English - I even dream in English.  But I still can't speak English with the American bending of vowels although the way I build my paragraphs are in the manner of Americans.  But, when I go to my mother's hometown, I immediately (without conscious thought) start thinking in that language.

Now, my native tongue has a lot of Spanish influence on it.  I learned Spanish in my late teens.  Spanish somehow came naturally.   It was easy to learn.

So what this says to me... children learn to think through their experiences as children and this projects to their every action as adults which can impact everything they do as adults - either making adult learning (change) harder or easier.

I'm not seeing anything for you to disagree with me about, frankly. I am not seeing where anything I said fails to match what you claim. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm not seeing anything for you to disagree with me about, frankly. I am not seeing where anything I said fails to match what you claim. 

You say there's no difference between children learning a language and adults learning a language bar your stated conditions.  This is not true in my experience as I illustrated.

Edited July 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

Just now, anatess2 said:

You say there's no difference between children learning a language and adults learning a language.  This is not true in my experience.

No, you're misquoting me. If you dwell on your misquote I think you can't possibly understand what I said nor respond adequately to it. 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

No, you're misquoting me. If you dwell on your misquote I think you can't possibly understand what I said nor respond adequately to it. 

This is your statement:

" Without regard at the moment for individual language-learning proficiencies beyond the average, or prodigies, etc., I submit that when at least three environmental conditions are present and similar [degree of saturation in the language, absence or minimization of distracting forces, and the number of years they have to devote their attentions to the task of learning said language] children and adults tend to demonstrate pretty much the same learning curve whether the language is primary or secondary."

I disagree that they have the same learning curve even with those three environmental conditions being present.  But yes, maybe I don't understand what you're saying here.

Edited July 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is your statement:

" Without regard at the moment for individual language-learning proficiencies beyond the average, or prodigies, etc., I submit that when at least three environmental conditions are present and similar [degree of saturation in the language, absence or minimization of distracting forces, and the number of years they have to devote their attentions to the task of learning said language] children and adults tend to demonstrate pretty much the same learning curve whether the language is primary or secondary."

I disagree that they have the same learning curve even with those three environmental conditions being present.

You're still doing it. Look. Demonstrating pretty much the same learning curve is *not* the same thing as "no difference".  But I don't want to continue being side-tracked by nuance.

For brevity sake let's break this down, and let's start by taking your example of MTC-trained missionaries, and my first two environmental conditions. MTC missionaries experience a high degree of saturation in the language. They experience (formally structured and officially planned) programs to minimize distraction forces. Children learning their first (and even secondary) language are quite similar because they experience a high degree of saturation in the language and they are less distracted than, say, a student in junior high school or high school trying to learn a language during an hour or so-long class room experience supplemented with some homework; and being only casually exposed to the language when all's said and done.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Mike

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

You're still doing it. Look. Demonstrating pretty much the same learning curve is *not* the same thing as "no difference".  But I don't want to continue being side-tracked by nuance.

For brevity sake let's break this down, and let's start by taking your example of MTC-trained missionaries, and my first two environmental conditions. MTC missionaries experience a high degree of saturation in the language. They experience (formally structured and officially planned) programs to minimize distraction forces. Children learning their first (and even secondary) language are quite similar because they experience a high degree of saturation in the language and they are less distracted than, say, a student in junior high school or high school trying to learn a language during an hour or so-long class room experience supplemented with some homework; and being only casually exposed to the language when all's said and done.

And like I said, the MTC is an exception.  Something else is happening there.  And it needs to be pointed out that language learning is not just learning how to say a sentence in English and in French.

The better illustration is ME.  I speak Cebuano and Boholano and Pilipino with native proficiency - I speak them without translation.  That is, when I'm speaking in that language I am thinking in that language.  I speak it with their native accents and with their native thought pattern that forms the communication structure.  I learned them as a child.  I also learned English as a child.  But I learned it from years of English instruction in school through Filipino teachers and not in American immersion.  So, I come to America as an adult.  As of today, I've lived in America longer than I've lived in the Philippines and even married an American.  I am COMPLETELY immersed in American English.  I still don't speak English in the same manner as my husband.  I still can't speak in the American accent although I now THINK in English (which just happened relatively recently). 

This is true for every one of my family who are currently living in the US who migrated as adults.  I even have an aunt whose native language is Ilocano who married my Cebuano-speaking Uncle and raised Cebuano speaking children.  Until today (she's in her 70's) - she still can't speak Cebuano in the same manner as natives.  She still speaks Cebuano in the Ilocano structure.

But people like my nieces and nephews who grew up in a Filipino household in the US as children - they speak English and Cebuano interchangeably in the manner of natives.

Now, why I say the MTC has something going on there... every missionary I have met in the Philippines speak my language in the native accent.  They also speak in a manner that leads me to believe they are THINKING in my language instead of translating it in their head.  Kyle Jennermann who has been immersing himself in the Philippines for 3 years now can't do that.  Not only does he still speak with a Canadian accent, he still translates his first language in his head to speak the language of the natives which comes out as a convoluted sentence structure.  This is not unique to Jennermann.  There are many foreigners in the Philippines, even if they look Filipino and speak Filipino, you can tell they're foreigners by their speech.  The missionaries, on the other hand, can be blue-eyed blonde, and it always is a surprise to hear them speak like native Filipinos.

So, as you can see - learning a language as a child is completely different than learning it as an adult even with the same immersion, language structure learning, amount of time etc. etc. that is put into it.  Simply put, a child learns language (and everything else) differently than an adult does.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

How often have we heard that we should legalize Gay Marriage because "they're not hurting anybody"?

I've always said loud and clear... that's a bunch of bullhokey because I guarantee you, gay married people will want to raise children.

[Mike]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And like I said, the MTC is an exception.  Something else is happening there.  And it needs to be pointed out that language learning is not just learning how to say a sentence in English and in French.

The better illustration is ME.  I speak Cebuano and Boholano and Pilipino with native proficiency - I speak them without translation.  That is, when I'm speaking in that language I am thinking in that language.  I speak it with their native accents and with their native thought pattern that forms the communication structure.  I learned them as a child.  I also learned English as a child.  But I learned it from years of English instruction in school through Filipino teachers and not in American immersion.  So, I come to America as an adult.  As of today, I've lived in America longer than I've lived in the Philippines and even married an American.  I am COMPLETELY immersed in American English.  I still don't speak English in the same manner as my husband.  I still can't speak in the American accent although I now THINK in English (which just happened relatively recently).  This is true for every one of my family who are currently living in the US who migrated as adults.

But people like my nieces and nephews who grew up in a Filipino household in the US as children - they speak English and Cebuano interchangeably in the manner of natives.

Now, why I say the MTC has something going on there... every missionary I have met in the Philippines speak my language in the native accent.  They also speak in a manner that leads me to believe they are THINKING in my language instead of translating it in their head.  Kyle Jennermann who has been immersing himself in the Philippines for 3 years now can't do that.  Not only does he still speak with a Canadian accent, he still translates his first language in his head to speak the language of the natives which comes out as a convoluted sentence structure.  This is not unique to Jennermann.  There are many foreigners in the Philippines, even if they look Filipino and speak Filipino, you can tell they're foreigners by their speech.  The missionaries, on the other hand, can be blue-eyed blonde, and it always is a surprise to hear them speak like native Filipinos.

So, as you can see - learning a language as a child is completely different than learning it as an adult even with the same immersion, language structure learning, amount of time etc. etc. that is put into it.  Simply put, a child learns language (and everything else) differently than an adult does.

 

In reality the MTC is not an exception. The MTC demonstrates the reality of the norm. What is exceptional about the MTC is that it incorporates the Spirit, but the essentials of human language-learning are still there and utilized with a degree of focus metaphorically like using a magnifying glass and sunlight. When you say it needs to be pointed out that language learning is not just learning how to say a sentence..., you are, whether you realize it or not, referring to an ideal and to a goal. What I described is more akin to the reality of the process. The MTC utilizes the same essential drills that a parent utilizes with children and that all humans must begin with such as learning how to say a sentence--to borrow back your term. 

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'm skeptical of the numbers your comment earlier (about non-Filipino missionaries speaking with a native accent) might lead us to believe. Similar to the reality that it takes years for most children to speak their own language in a way that people outside their immediate family can understand them most missionaries arrive in their assignments unable to speak fluently (a pretty subjective word in itself) and those who leave their assignments two years later being able to fool a native listener (about accents) are rare indeed. (Don't make the mistake of misinterpreting what I'm saying as a denial of the reality of the gift of tongues, or of teaching by the spirit. That isn't what I'm doing here). 

In any event, keep trying to convince me that a child learns language differently than an adult does. You haven't succeeded yet. The successful children and the successful adults learn language very similarly utilizing the same essential skills. The adults who do it differently are exceptions to the rule. (Hahaha, don't say it. I already know I haven't convinced you, either. But we're having fun, right?  )

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Mike

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I resent that comment.  I'm not 1 in a 100.  How about 1 in a million? I mean, you DID say I was capable of anything.  Why, yes.  Yes, I am.  Thank you very much.

You are more evil than um...er....something really evil. 

[NeuroTypical]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are more evil than um...er....something really evil. 

More evil than not refrigerating ketchup?