Pages

Pages

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Is abstract knowledge incompatible with literal memorization?


Appears (empirically) as if our ability to abstract might be in direct conflict with our ability of rote memorization...
Solomon Shereshevsky (Luria, 1968) had an almost perfect literal memory. He remembers strings of hundreds of digits for years after only having read them once. I would like to explain this by his awesome synesthesia: everything is encoded in so many ways that everything is considered as new, and so a new memory trace is formed to remember it (we know that "first time" experiences are well remembered (Robinson, 1993), as are distinctive features (Hunt & Worthen, 2006)). 
Shereshevsky's gift was compensated by big difficulties recognizing... and had basically no understanding of abstraction: metaphor, figurative language.

So then it follows that those with an underdeveloped ability to abstract would most likely retreat into reification and misplaced concreteness when receiving metaphor and figurative language from others... i.e. "out of money!",  "banks lend out the deposits!", "government as household!", etc...


Stack Exchange Psychology & Neuroscience
Is abstract knowledge incompatible with literal memorization?




39 comments:

  1. . i.e. "out of money!", "banks lend out the deposits!", "government as household!", etc... Franko

    "Fiat funny money"

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Funny money” indicates they don’t really understand it... and they are correct they actually don’t understand it... so this is not “neoliberal lies!!!”, etc... they’re under developed in abstraction...

    Bob is a trained jurist (lawyer) so abstraction is not highly developed in that discipline... so he has to say “funny money!”....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like I say “USD zombies!” in view of these disgraced foreigners.., I don’t really understand them... so I have to resort to figures of speech, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, expensive fiat is the true "funny money" since fiat is already fully backed by the authority and power of the State to tax.

    “Funny money” indicates they don’t really understand it... Franko

    Actually the Austrian Econs do understand fiat and hate that it potentially undermines their ability to steal via deflation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. make that "Actually the Austrian Econs do understand inexpensive fiat"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Austrian analysis and concepts are abstract. You guys can't even begin to think about those. Hiding from your opponents is bad form.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, Mass measures of gold is not highly abstract ....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Id perhaps say Bob it is correctly observing the current system but I don’t think he really understands it .... as a matter of degree...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hiding from your opponents is bad form. B.R.

    Says the man who won't answer whether citizens should be allowed to use their Nation's fiat in inherently risk-free account form at the Treasury? Rather than be limited to mere physical fiat, coins and bills?

    Yes or no, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob won't answer because the Austrians are usury-lovers and would hate that citizens not be forced to use banks or else be limited to mere coins and bills.

    ReplyDelete
  11. answer whether citizens should be allowed to use their Nation's fiat

    The answer is obvious. There should be no "Nation's fiat". Which sorta makes the question "whether citizens should be allowed to use their Nation's fiat" moot.

    After the FED system is dismantled and someone still owns a fiat dollar bill, all persons should and would still be "allowed" to do anything they want with it. For all I know, they may become valuable like baseball cards. Not my concern.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The answer is obvious. There should be no "Nation's fiat". BR

    So what will taxes be collected in?

    ReplyDelete
  13. So the Austrian E-Cons DO BELIEVE in fiat; NEEDLESSLY EXPENSIVE FIAT, the hypocrites.



    ReplyDelete
  14. So what will taxes be collected in?

    Assuming there are taxes, why wouldn't the authorities want to be paid in the most stable and valuable type of money?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Assuming there are taxes, BR

    Of course there would be taxes; you hypocrites are too cowardly to advocate anarchy.

    why wouldn't the authorities want to be paid in the most stable and valuable type of money? BR

    To what end? Needless expense? When the taxation authority and power of the State is sufficient backing for any money form accepted? Including inexpensive pieces of paper, coins and computer bits?

    Stupid, corrupt, or both it has to be; you can no longer plead ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Or course Bob Roddis and ilk aren't the real problem but that people who should know better can't refute them.

    You know who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. When the taxation authority and power of the State is sufficient backing for any money form accepted?

    The fundamental principle of Rothbardians like myself is the strict abolition of the initiation of violence. Taxes and state authority violate that principle. We insist upon peaceful and voluntary activities unlike a violence freak like yourself.

    As I've said 827,234 times, statists and other "progressives" have no familiarity whatsoever with either basic Austrian School and/or libertarian concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

    "What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

    Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.

    https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism

    ReplyDelete
  19. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. BR

    Then you should agree that the ONLY ethical money form for government use is its own inexpensive fiat lest the taxation authority and power of government is misused to benefit private interests such as gold owners and fiat hoarders.

    But you can't since you worship shiny metals rather than ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  20. “lest the taxation authority and power of government”

    Yo that authority is enforced through violence.... this is the whole problem...

    ReplyDelete
  21. “Now you do not want to be fearing the authority. Do good, and you will be having applause from it.
    4 For it is God's servant for your good. Now if you should be doing evil, fear, for not feignedly is it wearing the sword.. ”. Romans 13

    Key phrase: “ not feignedly is it wearing the sword.” .... libertarians and related those biased anti war have a big problem with this scripture....

    ReplyDelete
  22. And another thing... FYI a lot of the Israelites were adept at literally memorizing your illustrious Hebrew Scriptures.... probably leaving them cognitively deficient in ability of abstraction and interpreting figurative language...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Back to the point:

    Is abstract knowledge incompatible with literal memorization?

    It is for those of limited mental capacity, as FRANKO demonstrates daily.

    ReplyDelete
  24. “Yo that authority is enforced through violence......this is the whole problem....”


    What, are you biased against war?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Libertarians are typically biased anti war...Ron Paul, Rand Paul, etc...

    I’m not libertarian... I’m authoritarian....

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/september/30/libertarianism-and-war-the-rothbard-rule/

    Of Rothbard: He realized that the vital question of war and peace isn’t just a side issue – he knew that, for libertarians, it is the most important issue of our time or any time. The reason is because either, like Buckley, we choose to worship at the altar of the war god, and must therefore bow down before the “necessity” of a “totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores,” or, like Rothbard, we can reject this false idol and take up the banner of liberty.”

    libertarians are typically biased anti war they don’t like the violence of war... or even the implied threat of the violence...

    ReplyDelete
  26. .... libertarians and related those biased anti war have a big problem with this scripture.... Franko

    No, they believe in any amount of violence to protect what they perceive as THEIR PROPERTY and that included in the past Christian slaves, e.g. the US Civil War.

    Austrian E-cons are properly called Propertarians; they wish the State to protect their property however ill-acquired and to enforce contracts however one-sided and unjust.

    And they worship money too and see it as THEIR MONEY, not as a tool of the State to promote the general welfare of ALL citizens, but something to be hoarded beyond legitimate needs to use as a tool of personal oppression.

    Nor do they follow Scripture but non-believers who were agnostic at best.

    P.S.
    I was fooled by these scoundrels for many years myself but reading and heeding ALL of the Bible eventually set me free.

    ReplyDelete
  27. “they wish the State to protect their property ”

    That’s not how I read it.. they only want to use violence as a last resort to counter a threat to their physical being...

    Bob says so above: “proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence”

    Violence from others has to be a predecessor... like Trump says he is a “counterpuncher”...

    Trump plays golf with Rand Paul...

    If everyone was libertarian, then no one would ever INITIATE violence... so logically there would be no violence... if no one including govt authority ever initiated it...

    But not everyone is libertarian... there do exist the aggressive among us too so libertarians and the biased anti war people are living in a f-ing non existent fairy fantasy world la-la land ... (ie their consciousness is oriented towards a future peaceful and secure era)...



    ReplyDelete
  28. ... they only want to use violence as a last resort to counter a threat to their physical being... Franko

    Then you don't know the Austrian E-Cons.

    You've been duped by the pious hypocrites, Franko. You and Hickey should be ashamed to be so naive.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Pure libertarians would have a problem with slavery (capturing African people and putting them in chains is violence) but not indentured servitude because those servents sign an agreement or contract... quid pro quo....

    ReplyDelete
  30. Austrians E-Cons are not even proper libertarians since they would force all of us to use their favorite private money form to pay our taxes with.

    Hence they are hypocrites who worship oppression, not liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  31. They would go back to using mass measures of metals..,, ie more reification/concreteness....

    ReplyDelete
  32. Which btw your beloved law directed Israel to use mass measures of metal when necessary...

    Measured by weight against some standard of a volume of dried wheat grains...

    Not a very abstract process there btw...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Which btw your beloved law directed Israel to use mass measures of metal when necessary... Franko

    It's mostly the Old Testament that allowed me to escape the Austrian E-Cons, while you were duped.

    You need the WHOLE Bible for proper perspective and that's no more than what the New Testament tells you too.

    ReplyDelete
  34. “escape the Austrian E-Cons”

    LOL I was never with them in the first place.... you were...

    I’m at war with libertarians... I can’t stand those f-ing people... no view of authority...

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL I was never with them in the first place.... you were.. Franko

    So what? I can refute them and you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Going all around the place all the time saying “that’s not the way the Israelites did it! “ all the time is not a refutation...

    ReplyDelete
  37. No Franko, using the Bible is how I correct YOU since you claim to be a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you spend too much time in the old testament consider it can result in a cognitive deficiency in your ability to abstract .... you are mostly memorizing large lists of rules of physical conduct.......

    Then you mentally atrophy and fall into reification and miss placed concreteness.....

    And the next thing you know you’re going all around trying to tell people if they don’t operate their currency system a certain way they’re all going to go to hell or wtf like you seem to be doing..

    ReplyDelete