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

Pinned

Ok fine. Hey everybody, I'm Dr Nick! I kibbitz #neuroscience and #ai and #embodiment conversations, insert jokes and takes and challenges and share papers. But mostly, sorry it's cathartic rants about the state of things. I mean, wtaf?

Dr Nick reposted

The Democrats routing Trump would make then a party of past grievances rather than forward-looking optimism. They could have been better off losing this one to Trump than defeating him comprehensively, opines Justin Webb of the BBC

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

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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...

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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...

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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.

Andrew (🎃)@athomashemlock.bsky.social

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.

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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.

View full thread

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...

Dr Nick@nmwilkinson.eurosky.social

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

Until that is what (almost) everyone hears. Just made it up. Bonkers really, still kind of flummoxed as to how he pulled it off. I guess a lot of people wanted to believe, but it's just a guess.

Shocked face

Mother Jones@motherjones.com

NEW: Anthropic’s filing appears to partly walk back the co-founders’ pledge to commit 80% of their personal equity holdings in the AI startup to philanthropic causes. Those acts, the filing suggests, are “voluntary, revocable expressions” that “do not constitute binding obligations.”

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.

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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.

View full thread

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...

Dave Leavens@daveleavens.bsky.social

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

The next step in dealing with this can of worms is to ask 'how did the vast majority of come to believe this mythical fact?' We're looking at this by analysing citation contexts from 1991 to now. And - spoiler alert - the answer is fabrication, by narrative inversion, in subsequent papers.

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.

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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.

View full thread

No wait, that was 3rd. Oh well. We didn't really address the 'how did this happen?' aspect, beyond addressing the dodgy reasoning in Morton & Johnson (1991) by which they salvage the Conspec theory from its wreckage upon their results - which was a flat disconfirmation of their hypothesis.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh in tone, but I really do think it is classically bad practice to insist that your theory knows better than the data. It's bad to build confirmation bias into your data analysis. It's not a clever wangle, it's bad science.

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.

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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.

4th, we didn't charge selective transmission, but misuse of statistical reasoning and non-sequitur logical reasoning. The mass miscitation bit is not so much a charge as a simple fact, published in black and white. The cites say X. The OG results say not-X, wrt to the three blob pref.

How about just send them anyway? Or are they in US bases?

Ron Filipkowski@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social

From Zelenskyy. Patriot interceptors that could save innocent lives are sitting in European countries for weeks, which they paid for, unable to be transferred to Ukraine because Hegseth refuses to sign off.

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...

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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

Will Stancil@whstancil.bsky.social

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

My girlfriend’s 96-year-old grandmother, still sharp as can be but ailing, braved going out to vote for Lula. She lived under dictatorship and said she wants to die knowing her family will not have to live what she lived. She braved the rain and lack of access to do her part. A legend.

It is bleakly funny that our paper has kicked off impassioned nativist-empiricist wrangling over the meaning of its results for these entrenched sides. A big part of the message was that these a priori theoretical commitments distort interpretation of results and lead us down the garden path.

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...

Dr Nick@nmwilkinson.eurosky.social

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 🤣

Open Hax Octave Commons@open-hax.bsky.social

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...

Open Hax Octave Commons@open-hax.bsky.social

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 ☠️

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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...

View full thread

We see faces everywhere. It is quite funny that this both partly motivated the 'are faces special?' research question and makes this domain a mirror maze in which it is all too easy to become lost in the fractal reflections of our own perceptions, thoughts, and opinions

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...

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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...

☠️Beware Pareidolia ☠️

Heather L Kosakowski@kosakowski.bsky.social

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...

Imv subjective definition of 'face' and 'facelike' compromised construct validity in the newborn face preference domain. A combo of causal reification of effects and researcher pareidolia wreaked havoc on theory and methods. Circular reasoning abounds. Confusion reigns.

Dr Nick reposted

First Orban, now Vučić. Both fundamentally undone by rank corruption of their regimes. Which is so often the reality of the authoritarian right in power. Really worth paying heed to in Western Europe right now

Peter Geoghegan@petergeoghegan.bsky.social

Wow. Vučić has conceded Serbian election. Massive moment for the entire Balkans

Uh no

Quantian@quantian.bsky.social

Sushi in Japan is for rich tourists and corporate expense accounts, not normal people. At nominal exchange rates (eg tourists), the median American is richer than all but the top 5% of Japanese households, and even adjusting for PPP differences they’re comfortably in the top quartile.

Japanese people eat sushi quite often, it is a favourite fast food. 'Ramen or sushi?' is a thing people say when they fancy some quick food, and there are lots of sushi places full of Japanese people

The fascists will just cheat, so we cannot let them participate

Rafa Sales Ross@rafiews.com

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

Replying to @rafiews.com

We are watching a coup d’état attempt unfold in real time in Brazil. I’m consumed by desperation.