Just one example listed is overimitation, how children copies unnecessary steps while chimps did not. The middle post also lists other points for that case.
The blog post in the second link contradicts its own premise from the second definition. It also flagrantly disregards the monumentally vast difference between "evolution" and "metamorphosis".
The paper (first link) and the other blog post (third link) both come to roughly the same conclusions: 1) that learning by imitation can be fouled up, but for simple tasks (eg, the kind of tasks used in the experiments described), actually fouling up the process requires artificial additions to make it happen, and 2) that learning by imitation may in fact be necessary for complex tasks where the causal link is not immediately apparent. (Indeed, the description of the task given to the chimps in the second blog post has the chimps imitating the people administering the test as well, when the causal link of the actions to the result is opaque to them.)
tl;dr: No, the science behind your links does not support the hypothesis that humans are defective.
So we're a species that has spread to every single content, is seven billion strong, are apex predators, and routinely drive other species to extinction, and you're asking whether we're defective?
No. No we are not.
Also, the middle link is made by a person named "The Seer of Forbidden Truth," and this is actually something that he wrote and I am not making any of it up:
The purpose of this essay is to articulate and disseminate all of the primary, evidentiary proof I have realized, that humanity as a species exists as a genetic and biological birth defect. Before I begin listing the evidence, there are two specific terms that must be clearly and properly defined and understood.
The first is "evidentiary proof". There are MANY very important Forbidden Truths that cannot be proven "concretely", for many different reasons. Meaning, beyond all shadow of all doubt. But they can be proven via a preponderance of overwhelming evidence and various facts, all brought together to demonstrate factual Truth to all sane, rational, and fair-minded brains capable of deductive reasoning absent the external bias and prejudice demanded by The Hive Mind of Universal Illusion.
The birth defect status of humanity is such a Truth. Evidentiary proof, as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay, must be recognized as being just as valid as concrete proof.
Again, this is an actual thing a person wrote.
Let's see more of these "Forbidden Truths," shall we?
99+% of the time, the evolutionary process is very slow, it takes many centuries for very small changes to a species, to occur. In a few rare instances, the evolutionary process is very rapid, such as a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly. Most humans refer to this as "metamorphosis", rather than evolution, but it is clearly an evolutionary process.
The human being, alone among all other species, has experienced a singularly unique, unmatched and catastrophic, failure to thrive.
We are thriving on a level no species ever has.
Only the human being chooses to end his own existence, via both dynamic and long-term suicide.
This is incorrect.
Only the human being chooses to suffer and to inflict pain/harm upon himself.
What the ****? That's completely incorrect.
Only the human being tries to solve minor problems, while ignoring and pretending that other, much more major and important problems, don't exist.
Ok, no, and also, what the hell does that even mean?
Only the human is a pathological addict to substances that are actively harmful to him.
Not true either.
Only the human negates his own Self-value, leaving it to others to control how he feels about Himself.
Also false.
Only the human consciously chooses to harm and destroy the environment upon which he is dependent for survival.
Also false.
Only the human directs negative perception of Self, upon himself.
Also false.
AzureDuality, this guy is saying outright false things. Which, of course he is, because he calls himself "The Seer of Forbidden Truth" and doesn't know what words mean or when to capitalize them. OF COURSE he's a complete ********.
So basically, your source is a cartoon character. The answer is no, this guy is not a credible source.
I figured. The middle source seems utterly convinced of his genius as a "superior mind", aka not listening to criticism that isn't his own. This is just one example of the crazy. Then again he thinks Charles Manson is a sage an has dubbed himself a philosopher (an insult to the field really).
Then again he does mention how the same problems (poverty, disease, suicide, murder, pollution) than man had before persist today. Followed by a weak assertion how man 10,000 years ago didn't commit suicide.
But the papers where intriguing. It made me think twice. But I think the point earlier about the level of the task matters.
I figured. The middle source seems utterly convinced of his genius as a "superior mind", aka not listening to criticism that isn't his own. This is just one example of the crazy. Then again he thinks Charles Manson is a sage an has dubbed himself a philosopher (an insult to the field really).
Then again he does mention how the same problems (poverty, disease, suicide, murder, pollution) than man had before persist today. Followed by a weak assertion how man 10,000 years ago didn't commit suicide.
Also how is he wrong about all the points he makes? It's not enough just to say someone is wrong.
Wait, what the hell?
You just got through saying, "Yeah, he's totally crazy." Now you're saying, "I don't understand how he's crazy and also I don't see how all these points he makes that were previously criticized are wrong."
What the - that's the exact opposite of what you just said!
I'm not saying that I do. But I would like to know the errors
I've already pointed them out. He says human beings are the only species in which __. I'm saying that's not true. Therefore, the error is obvious: humans are not the only example of __.
and why he is wrong rather than simply being told so.
Doing any research, any at all, on what he's saying would demonstrate how his statements are counterfactual.
This is why you need to exercise skepticism instead of blindly linking to things.
I've already pointed them out. He says human beings are the only species in which __. I'm saying that's not true. Therefore, the error is obvious: humans are not the only example of __.
For a specific example: He claims humans are the only animals who harm themselves. One of the dolphins who portrayed the title character of Flipper drowned herself right in front of her trainer.
But as I have said before, where is the information that proves him wrong? I mean it is one thing to say that he is wrong but without the requisite data I can't make that call. Plus searching the Internet could yield a variety of results, how do I know which one is right?
I need a little more that "wrong" to think otherwise.
As for the link, apparently the logic that great minds in the past were once shunned is used here.
But as I have said before, where is the information that proves him wrong?
As I've said before, try Google.
You've somehow managed to find bizarre sites, you can find one that contains some actual science.
As for the link, apparently the logic that great minds in the past were once shunned is used here.
You haven't answered my question. When we posted the link was bullcrap, you said you figured it was. Now, you're saying you don't agree and you don't understand why it is. What is going on?
The human being, alone among all other species, has experienced a singularly unique, unmatched and catastrophic, failure to thrive.
We are thriving on a level no species ever has.
I am going to say that while we are certainly thriving, and we ARE doing so in a very unique way- we aren't 'thriving on a level no species ever has'. Bacteria, fungi and insects all offer very strong competition, such that we don't come out on top in most ways of looking at 'thriving'.
Only the human negates his own Self-value, leaving it to others to control how he feels about Himself.
Also false.
We should be careful that we have very little truly concrete evidence on the nature of consciousness- including self perception- in others species. Behaviour does at least seem to indicate this is false though. And certainly, it can't be said to be known as true.
EDIT:
I'm just going to take the opportunity to express my disgust with our friend 'The Seer of Forbidden Truth'
Just
The birth defect status of humanity is such a Truth. Evidentiary proof, as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay, must be recognized as being just as valid as concrete proof.
Why?
Are we sure this person is not a troll? Because honestly, 'as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay' is something I would say as a self deprecating joke.
Interesting thing to note is that a number of points made proving defect are actually potentially, even usually, beneficial.
Only the human being chooses to suffer and to inflict pain/harm upon himself.
An individual inflicting pain or harm upon itself is USUALLY beneficial because it's necessary to perform a huge variety of actions that are necessary to survival and reproduction.
Being charitable, we can assume the intended meaning was harm themselves more directly and with intent to harm not just acceptance of the fact. In this case, we have various species of arthropod that will sacrifice themselves to their mates or their young for their survival.
Being even more charitable, we can take the intended meaning as harm without equivalent or greater benefit. In which cases we still see examples in other species even though this behaviour is somewhat of a defect.
Only the human being tries to solve minor problems, while ignoring and pretending that other, much more major and important problems, don't exist.
Depending on what you mean by how 'major' and 'important' a problem is, major and important problems might be more evolutionarily beneficial than minor ones because evolution only favours some things we consider beneficial and favours some things we might consider not really beneficial at all.
Taking major and important with regards to evolution only, this statement will ALWAYS be false, because evolution is a fundamentally imperfect process. There is no such thing as a evolutionarily perfect organism, and there never will be.
Only the human consciously chooses to harm and destroy the environment upon which he is dependent for survival.
'Consciously' is a snag here because of lacking evidence about consciousness, but it certainly seems other animals consciously decide a lot of things and if they indeed do some of the things they do destroy their environment. Overconsumption is a real thing for animals as well as humans. It's simply a result of the beneficial desire to maximize consumption- and therefore not a defect but a limitation.
Only the human directs negative perception of Self, upon himself.
Forming negative perceptions of yourself is part of how you improve. It's beneficial to do it, as long as, of course, it's not in excess (which it is not in humans). Though, it's not surprising a person who would seriously say "as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay", has difficulty understanding the benefits of negative self perception.
https://www.ideapod.com/idea/The-Evidentiary-Proof-Humanity-is-a-Biologically-and-Genetically-Brain-Birth-Defective-Species/58f6a211fe3a59f26568c688
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/science/children-learn-by-monkey-see-monkey-do-chimps-dont.html?_r=0
Just one example listed is overimitation, how children copies unnecessary steps while chimps did not. The middle post also lists other points for that case.
The paper (first link) and the other blog post (third link) both come to roughly the same conclusions: 1) that learning by imitation can be fouled up, but for simple tasks (eg, the kind of tasks used in the experiments described), actually fouling up the process requires artificial additions to make it happen, and 2) that learning by imitation may in fact be necessary for complex tasks where the causal link is not immediately apparent. (Indeed, the description of the task given to the chimps in the second blog post has the chimps imitating the people administering the test as well, when the causal link of the actions to the result is opaque to them.)
tl;dr: No, the science behind your links does not support the hypothesis that humans are defective.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
No. No we are not.
Also, the middle link is made by a person named "The Seer of Forbidden Truth," and this is actually something that he wrote and I am not making any of it up:
Again, this is an actual thing a person wrote.
Let's see more of these "Forbidden Truths," shall we?
Holy **** this guy thinks evolution means the same thing as it does in Pokemon.
We are thriving on a level no species ever has.
This is incorrect.
What the ****? That's completely incorrect.
Ok, no, and also, what the hell does that even mean?
Not true either.
Also false.
Also false.
Also false.
AzureDuality, this guy is saying outright false things. Which, of course he is, because he calls himself "The Seer of Forbidden Truth" and doesn't know what words mean or when to capitalize them. OF COURSE he's a complete ********.
So basically, your source is a cartoon character. The answer is no, this guy is not a credible source.
Then again he does mention how the same problems (poverty, disease, suicide, murder, pollution) than man had before persist today. Followed by a weak assertion how man 10,000 years ago didn't commit suicide.
But the papers where intriguing. It made me think twice. But I think the point earlier about the level of the task matters.
The other two sources are much better, but their conclusions don't support the hypothesis.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
But why is it off the deep end?
Also how is he wrong about all the points he makes? It's not enough just to say someone is wrong.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Also the comments have another person elaborating on what he already said.
Wait, what the hell?
You just got through saying, "Yeah, he's totally crazy." Now you're saying, "I don't understand how he's crazy and also I don't see how all these points he makes that were previously criticized are wrong."
What the - that's the exact opposite of what you just said!
What is even happening here?
I've already pointed them out. He says human beings are the only species in which __. I'm saying that's not true. Therefore, the error is obvious: humans are not the only example of __.
Doing any research, any at all, on what he's saying would demonstrate how his statements are counterfactual.
This is why you need to exercise skepticism instead of blindly linking to things.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I need a little more that "wrong" to think otherwise.
As for the link, apparently the logic that great minds in the past were once shunned is used here.
You've somehow managed to find bizarre sites, you can find one that contains some actual science.
You haven't answered my question. When we posted the link was bullcrap, you said you figured it was. Now, you're saying you don't agree and you don't understand why it is. What is going on?
I am going to say that while we are certainly thriving, and we ARE doing so in a very unique way- we aren't 'thriving on a level no species ever has'. Bacteria, fungi and insects all offer very strong competition, such that we don't come out on top in most ways of looking at 'thriving'.
We should be careful that we have very little truly concrete evidence on the nature of consciousness- including self perception- in others species. Behaviour does at least seem to indicate this is false though. And certainly, it can't be said to be known as true.
EDIT:
I'm just going to take the opportunity to express my disgust with our friend 'The Seer of Forbidden Truth'
Just
Why?
Are we sure this person is not a troll? Because honestly, 'as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay' is something I would say as a self deprecating joke.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
An individual inflicting pain or harm upon itself is USUALLY beneficial because it's necessary to perform a huge variety of actions that are necessary to survival and reproduction.
Being charitable, we can assume the intended meaning was harm themselves more directly and with intent to harm not just acceptance of the fact. In this case, we have various species of arthropod that will sacrifice themselves to their mates or their young for their survival.
Being even more charitable, we can take the intended meaning as harm without equivalent or greater benefit. In which cases we still see examples in other species even though this behaviour is somewhat of a defect.
Depending on what you mean by how 'major' and 'important' a problem is, major and important problems might be more evolutionarily beneficial than minor ones because evolution only favours some things we consider beneficial and favours some things we might consider not really beneficial at all.
Taking major and important with regards to evolution only, this statement will ALWAYS be false, because evolution is a fundamentally imperfect process. There is no such thing as a evolutionarily perfect organism, and there never will be.
'Consciously' is a snag here because of lacking evidence about consciousness, but it certainly seems other animals consciously decide a lot of things and if they indeed do some of the things they do destroy their environment. Overconsumption is a real thing for animals as well as humans. It's simply a result of the beneficial desire to maximize consumption- and therefore not a defect but a limitation.
Forming negative perceptions of yourself is part of how you improve. It's beneficial to do it, as long as, of course, it's not in excess (which it is not in humans). Though, it's not surprising a person who would seriously say "as brilliantly presented by Me in this essay", has difficulty understanding the benefits of negative self perception.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice