Pinned
Dr Nick
Dr Nick
@nmwilkinson.eurosky.social
Hey, everybody! Not that kind of doctor. Embodied cognition, AI and robotics, eating behaviour, flavour & the senses Mostly cathartic ranting Personal account
2.1K followers2K following15.8K posts
Dr Nick reposted
Increasingly annoyed by this as it sinks in. Ignores stuff we make effort to address in the paper, and responses are being ignored too. Our paper is not even having a go at nativism, so wth is it with this reaction from the nativists? Feels like a hijack and I'm not happy about it. Please, get real
So... @numcog.bsky.social, this paper STRENGTHENS, not weakens, arguments for nativism: Within an hour of birth, newborns track schematic faces but not scrambled face parts. The template fails to capture that pattern and the explanatory problem just got more interesting! bsky.app/profile/numc...
No. This is wrong for a bunch of reasons *which we address in the paper*. A preference for a single cartoon 'face' stimulus is just not a preference for faces as a class. C'mon, what is this? Are we ideologists or scientists? bsky.app/profile/kosa...
And @deontbenton.bsky.social, this in no way challenges domain specificity.. babies still prefer and track faces! They just aren’t satisfied with three blobs. How does a preference that requires MORE than a face-like configuration become evidence against domain specificity? bsky.app/profile/deon...
Obviously losing famous supporting data (because it was fabricated) does not strengthen nativism. That makes no sense at all. Heather, maybe engage with responses if you can defend these arguments? And if you can't then withdraw them please. bsky.app/profile/kosa...
So... @numcog.bsky.social, this paper STRENGTHENS, not weakens, arguments for nativism: Within an hour of birth, newborns track schematic faces but not scrambled face parts. The template fails to capture that pattern and the explanatory problem just got more interesting! bsky.app/profile/numc...
Dr Nick reposted
Related: I’m still looking for leads and help on jobs, fellowships, and freelance contracts on drones, GIS, aid, disaster, OSINT, tech ethics, and journalism. I simply will not work for evil people and/or weapons manufacturers, which is also why I haven’t had paying work since Trump 2.0 began.
Drone tech has so many incredible applications for so many industries and if you want to make any sort of living you have to work for an illiterate Nazi pervert dweeb who collects erotic anime figurines.
Guess I should address this charge of selective transmission. Firstly, the paper is right there, go read it! Obvs there is more in the paper than in the thread. Secondly, the headline here is *what has changed* due to the review. What has not changed has, uh, not changed. So people already know.
in sum, if the criticism is that researchers selectively transmitted findings to support a preferred theory, selectively transmitting findings to celebrate its demise seems an unfortunate response. Correct the three-blob story. Explain the face preference. Both are important parts of the paper.
Who does this? The first author of the OG paper, which was 1991. Just the following year, the narrative inversion begins 👇🏻. And it continues from there. He never mentions the disconfirmatory config>inverse null again, afaict. Just keeps plugging the mythical pretend positive bsky.app/profile/nmwi...
Johnson et al (1991) “Further, our results suggest that a face-like configuration of elements alone is insufficient: some characteristics of facial features may be important in addition to the arrangement.” p10. Johnson (1992) (same first author) doi.org/10.1111/1467... inverts this, stating p54-55
Guess I should address this charge of selective transmission. Firstly, the paper is right there, go read it! Obvs there is more in the paper than in the thread. Secondly, the headline here is *what has changed* due to the review. What has not changed has, uh, not changed. So people already know.
in sum, if the criticism is that researchers selectively transmitted findings to support a preferred theory, selectively transmitting findings to celebrate its demise seems an unfortunate response. Correct the three-blob story. Explain the face preference. Both are important parts of the paper.
It has consequences beyond boosting your career and kudos. In this case, one consequence was generations of students mistaught. I think this is a pretty big deal. And we haven't even got to the really bad part yet. bsky.app/profile/dave...
I never had a dog in that race, so I have apparently mistaught an entire generation of British undergraduates. Oh well, live and learn. The origins of pointing are, as Katie correctly noted, beset with both nativist and essentialist baggage. The most blatant example is that apes who ... 2/n
Guess I should address this charge of selective transmission. Firstly, the paper is right there, go read it! Obvs there is more in the paper than in the thread. Secondly, the headline here is *what has changed* due to the review. What has not changed has, uh, not changed. So people already know.
in sum, if the criticism is that researchers selectively transmitted findings to support a preferred theory, selectively transmitting findings to celebrate its demise seems an unfortunate response. Correct the three-blob story. Explain the face preference. Both are important parts of the paper.
Guess I should address this charge of selective transmission. Firstly, the paper is right there, go read it! Obvs there is more in the paper than in the thread. Secondly, the headline here is *what has changed* due to the review. What has not changed has, uh, not changed. So people already know.
in sum, if the criticism is that researchers selectively transmitted findings to support a preferred theory, selectively transmitting findings to celebrate its demise seems an unfortunate response. Correct the three-blob story. Explain the face preference. Both are important parts of the paper.
Dr Nick reposted
Replying to @nmwilkinson.eurosky.social
like i do not get veto on people's interpretations of my work, but imv the below is just wrong. and the wrongness appears to be motivated by a desire to for nativism to be right, and not by the results and analysis in our paper bsky.app/profile/kosa...
So... @numcog.bsky.social, this paper STRENGTHENS, not weakens, arguments for nativism: Within an hour of birth, newborns track schematic faces but not scrambled face parts. The template fails to capture that pattern and the explanatory problem just got more interesting! bsky.app/profile/numc...
Same thing happened to the TrumpoCoup
It's like everyone decided "If the president was plausibly accused of child sex trafficking, it would be the biggest scandal of all time" and went from there to "It's not the biggest scandal of all time, so I guess he's not plausibly accused of child sex trafficking." But he is.
Dr Nick reposted
Just study the thing. The evidence is just what it is. The potential causes are just causes. Do the nativists or empiricists win? Who cares? It doesn't matter. This is science, not a horse race bsky.app/profile/nmwi...
Yeah, like once we understand how the thing develops, people can label it innate or learned or whatever, and it won't make any important difference at all
Tfw when a 🤖 mirrors your own argument to you and you think dang, this guy is real smart 🤣
The move toward treating the sensing body as the primary sampling bias—rather than a hard-wired module—feels like a necessary course correction. When theoretical commitments act as the map, we often stop looking at the actual terrain.
But like at least it parsed the paper and extracted the intended message communicated bsky.app/profile/open...
The idea that embodiment provides a 'sampling bias' as a primary source of what we call innate information is such a grounding perspective. It moves the conversation from 'hard-wired modules' to the physics of the sensing body.
☠️Beware Pareidolia ☠️
When and how do newborns see a face? @nmwilkinson.eurosky.social and colleagues identify a serious problem in how a foundational newborn study has been interpreted. But the Bluesky victory lap is leaving out a rather important detail: neonates track FACE drawings! bsky.app/profile/nmwi...
When and how do newborns see a face? Straightforward question, right? Or is it? Read flatly, the answer is 'every time they see a face' (see the 🔃?) There is no empirical question to ask or answer. But that flat reading is not quite what is meant, so what exactly is meant? bsky.app/profile/kosa...
When and how do newborns see a face? @nmwilkinson.eurosky.social and colleagues identify a serious problem in how a foundational newborn study has been interpreted. But the Bluesky victory lap is leaving out a rather important detail: neonates track FACE drawings! bsky.app/profile/nmwi...
Dr Nick reposted
☠️Beware Pareidolia ☠️
When and how do newborns see a face? @nmwilkinson.eurosky.social and colleagues identify a serious problem in how a foundational newborn study has been interpreted. But the Bluesky victory lap is leaving out a rather important detail: neonates track FACE drawings! bsky.app/profile/nmwi...
Dr Nick reposted
The fascists will just cheat, so we cannot let them participate
Transport issues in major capitals across Brazil right now, all major Lula-voting hubs, including the city of São Paulo. More arrest warrants for mayors across Brazil are currently being issued while the Labour Party tries to get voting times extended (polls are due to close in 95 minutes).
Dr Nick reposted
Dr Nick reposted
Dr Nick reposted
AOC Tidies Up In Case Federal Agents Stop By For Raid