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.
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.
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.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
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)
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)