Dissolving the Fermi Paradox. Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler and Toby Ord. Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University, June 8, 2018. arXiv:1806.02404v1
Abstract: The Fermi paradox is the conflict between an expectation of a high ex ante probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the apparently lifeless universe we in fact observe. The expect ation that the universe should be teeming with intelligent life is linked to models like the Drake equation, which suggest that even if the probability of intelligent life developing at a given site is small, the sheer multitude of possible sites should nonetheless yield a large number of potentially observable civilizations. We show that this conflict arises from the use of Drake-like equations, which implicitly assume certainty regarding highly uncertain parameters. We examine these parameters, incorporating models of chemical and genetic transitions on paths to the origin of life, and show that extant scientific knowledge corresponds to uncertainties that span multiple orders of magnitude. This makes a stark difference. When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty, we find a substantial ex ante probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable universe, and thus that there should be little surprise when we fail to detect any signs of it. This result dissolves the Fermi paradox, and in doing so removes any need to invoke speculative mechanisms by which civilizations would inevitably fail to have observable effects upon the universe.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
“I would Never Fall for That”: The Use of an Illegitimate Authority to Teach Social Psychological Principles
“I would Never Fall for That”: The Use of an Illegitimate Authority to Teach Social Psychological Principles. Sally D Farley, Deborah H. Carson, Terrence Pope. May 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325467243
Abstract: The current class activity explores attitudinal beliefs and behavioral responses of obedience to an illegitimate authority figure in an ambiguous situation. In Experiment 1, students either self- reported the likelihood that they would obey a request made by a stranger to surrender their cell phone, or were asked directly and in person by a confederate to relinquish their cell phone. The exercise revealed a marked discrepancy between how students predicted they would respond and how they actually did respond to the request. Across five classes, an average of 85.2% students obeyed the request. In Experiment 2, student learning was measured in addition to obedience. Although students exposed to the exercise had similar gains in learning as those exposed to a control condition, the mean obedience rate was a compelling 95.7%. Furthermore, students self- reported a greater willingness to obey the commands of an authority figure after learning about the Milgram study than before, thereby acknowledging their vulnerability to authority. We discuss the importance of including Milgram’s shock study in a comprehensive psychology curriculum, and provide recommendations for how this exercise might assist understanding of myriad social psychological principles including obedience, conformity, social influence, the attitude-behavior link, and the fundamental attribution error.
Abstract: The current class activity explores attitudinal beliefs and behavioral responses of obedience to an illegitimate authority figure in an ambiguous situation. In Experiment 1, students either self- reported the likelihood that they would obey a request made by a stranger to surrender their cell phone, or were asked directly and in person by a confederate to relinquish their cell phone. The exercise revealed a marked discrepancy between how students predicted they would respond and how they actually did respond to the request. Across five classes, an average of 85.2% students obeyed the request. In Experiment 2, student learning was measured in addition to obedience. Although students exposed to the exercise had similar gains in learning as those exposed to a control condition, the mean obedience rate was a compelling 95.7%. Furthermore, students self- reported a greater willingness to obey the commands of an authority figure after learning about the Milgram study than before, thereby acknowledging their vulnerability to authority. We discuss the importance of including Milgram’s shock study in a comprehensive psychology curriculum, and provide recommendations for how this exercise might assist understanding of myriad social psychological principles including obedience, conformity, social influence, the attitude-behavior link, and the fundamental attribution error.
We Made History: Citizens of 35 Countries Overestimate Their Nation's Role in World History
We Made History: Citizens of 35 Countries Overestimate Their Nation's Role in World History. Franklin M. Zaromba et al. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.05.006
Abstract: Following a survey asking many questions about world history, 6185 students from 35 countries were asked, “What contribution do you think the country you are living in has made to world history?” They provided an estimate from 0 to 100%, where 0% indicated that the country made no contribution to world history and 100% indicated that all contributions came from the country. U.S. students provided an estimate of 30%, quite high in some regards, but modest compared to other countries (e.g., 39% by Malaysians). Country-level estimates varied widely, ranging from 11% (Switzerland) to 61% (Russia). The total estimate (summing for all countries) was 1156%. We argue that students’ exaggerated estimates provide evidence for national narcissism and may be caused by several mechanisms, such as the availability heuristic—when students think about world history, they mostly think about the history of their country and thus assume their country must be important.
Keywords: Availability heuristic; Collective memory; Collective narcissism; Egocentrism; Myside bias; National narcissism
Abstract: Following a survey asking many questions about world history, 6185 students from 35 countries were asked, “What contribution do you think the country you are living in has made to world history?” They provided an estimate from 0 to 100%, where 0% indicated that the country made no contribution to world history and 100% indicated that all contributions came from the country. U.S. students provided an estimate of 30%, quite high in some regards, but modest compared to other countries (e.g., 39% by Malaysians). Country-level estimates varied widely, ranging from 11% (Switzerland) to 61% (Russia). The total estimate (summing for all countries) was 1156%. We argue that students’ exaggerated estimates provide evidence for national narcissism and may be caused by several mechanisms, such as the availability heuristic—when students think about world history, they mostly think about the history of their country and thus assume their country must be important.
Keywords: Availability heuristic; Collective memory; Collective narcissism; Egocentrism; Myside bias; National narcissism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
