Is there a correlation between intelligence and sense of humor?
My personal conclusion is yes, because whenever I see a comedian interviewed as themselves, the best ones are invariably intelligent people. I've also noticed that comedians tend to be very good actors, and I suspect it's because the skills of observation, detecting nuance, correctly inferring the inner world based on the outer, and so forth, are skills that are useful for both comedy and acting. And I suppose intelligence, particularly with regard to understanding other people, helps your ability to employ these skills. Comedians also have to be quite introspective; with a passionate curiosity for "why we do what we do", and this curiosity about people is strongly correlated with intelligence.It is a particular type of intelligence, though, and not a simple correlation; you can be incredibly intelligent in an academic sense, and not funny at all, and conversely, some people who are not conventionally intelligent are very funny. And I think Ethan Hein is getting close when he attributes it to "emotional intelligence".All of the above are my amateur conclusions as an observer of comedians and life. But there does - fortunately for me - seem to be some support in the literature.Greengross and Miller [1] also studied mating success as a third variable, and concluded "the human sense of humor evolved at least partly through sexual selection as an intelligence-indicator".A study by Hauck and Thomas [2] studied 3 variables, creativity, intelligence, and sense of humor, and concluded that creativity and intelligence were independent, however sense of humor correlated highly with both creativity and intelligence.Howrigan and MacDonald [3] studied a group of college students, and asked them to perform a humorous task, by creating imaginary profiles of people based on some basic information. The study subjects then rated the humor of the other participants' responses, and also completed tests of general intelligence, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The study found that general intelligence was a strong predictor of humor, independent of the other variables. They concluded that "humor is a signal—an honest advertisement of underlying cognitive ability and fitness—and that it continues to serve this function today".[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...[2] http://www.jstor.org/discover/10...[3] http://www.epjournal.net/wp-cont...
Why do people jump to conclusions?
According to Daniel Kahneman, our brain is an associative machine that always looks for causes and, when they are not easy to see, we use a sort of statistical approach to determine them. Unconsciously, we judge which is the most probable sequence of events and end up assuming it as true. This way of thinking exposes us to serious errors when it comes to interpreting random events, since one signal may have multiple meanings.We are always looking for patterns (even though there are no patterns in really random events) because we need to believe in a coherent world that is governed by certain rules.If we see that a basketball player hits three triples in a row, we assume that he is a good player, even if the general statistics don’t say so. If we see a financial advisor getting two predictions right, we will consider him an expert.We don’t realize that most of the things we see in life happen by chance. This misunderstanding of randomness, coupled with our need to assume causality, has significant consequences in our judgment and in the decisions we make. If we follow our intuition we will be wrong quite often. But it doesn’t matter, we will continue to trust our intuition, because it is in our DNA.Jumping to Conclusions
Is Apple still licensing voice recognition from Nuance in their Siri product? If so, why don't Nuance or Apple openly admit it?
It's no secret that Nuance has a confidentiality clause here. Ask any Nuance employee and you'll hear the following official response: "Apple licenses Nuance technology for use in various products. The company is not authorized to comment on specific capabilities or devices." I was still at Nuance when those two sentences were passed around as the only thing we were allowed to say on the matter. A few media outlets have jumped to conclusions based on that, as in the TechCrunch article you linked. Kevin Faulkner, the investor relations spokesperson for Nuance, has gone a little farther, giving some hints here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/grea...The obvious followup is, why the confidentiality? Nuance ran into this all the time, especially with the automotive industry. Did you know Ford's SYNC was designed and powered by Nuance? Microsoft has its name on it, for whatever reason, but most of the heavy lifting was done by Nuance. But Ford trumpets the Microsoft name, not the Nuance name. After all, Microsoft was more well-known than Nuance. Nuance probably had some exclusivity with Ford and Microsoft at the time on the design. And why would a car company go out of their way to talk about their speech recognition vendor? They don't talk about their spark plug vendor or their speaker vendor or where they source their metal for their frame... unless it has perceived value to the consumer (like Bose).Apple has a brand as the kings of innovation. Why would they want Nuance to take any of that away from them? I expect in the contract negotiations, the strict confidentiality rules, with stiff penalties, were put in place, so that Apple could be perceived as the sole creator of this awesome product in the minds of most consumers. Meanwhile, I'm sure Nuance, through unofficial channels and in private sales calls with customers, is more than happy to tell people more of the real story, whatever it is. But you won't find that in print anywhere.As Nuance's star rises, you may see people more willing to talk about them using Nuance technology. Until then, it may be a competitive advantage NOT to say how much is Nuance and how much is one's own technology.
What does borderline glaucoma mean?
all patients what a "do i or dont i" answer, so thats normal. unfortunately it aint that easy. who does & who does not have glaucoma is hotly debated in the profession. i'm a glaucoma specialist & i treat a moderate amount of glaucoma...i was at a seminar where 2 glaucoma experts got in a HEATED debate over some of the nuances of diagnosing glaucoma. what i usually mean when i tell patients they are a "glaucoma suspect" is that i think its possible that they might be developing the early signs of glaucoma. its not OBVIOUSLY GLAUCOMA right now or i'd treat it. and i usually have them back for more testing to compare those results to the testing i did today and see if theres any changes. thats why he wants you back next year...to compare the testing then to the testing now & see if anything is different. if you obviously are exactly the same next year...well then its probably not glaucoma. but if your testing is markedly different next time...well thats cause for concern. you're only 24. you're young. you do not want to be diagnosed & treated for glaucoma if you don't have it. expensive eyedrops and your insurance will label you as a "pre-exising condition" etc etc etc. so we dont treat cases where we dont know if its glaucoma yet or not. glaucoma is almost never an emergency. usually glaucoma patients take years & years to go blind. you & your doc likely have PLENTY OF TIME to decide if you have glaucoma or not & come up with a treatment plan. dont stress. you might have early glaucoma. you might not. your doc hasnt decided yet. it isnt that easy to decide...there are a lot of factors, way more than most people assume. its more complicated than you might think. he'll know more next year when you do the testing again & he can compare
What are the difference between ''imply'', ''infer'', and ''assume''?
imply means to use nuances in tone of voice or writing to suggest something Infer means to use evidence to draw a logical conclusion Assume means to make judgement upon without having all the facts Eg: I was implying that I didn't want to go out with him when I darted my eyes around and made my voice sound very unsure I inferred he was talking about his english grade plummeting when yesterday, I saw that his marks had fallen 12% since last week After hearing all the gossip about Maria having slept with 5 different guys this year, I assumed she was a slut, despite the fact that she was actually a virgin
Do conservatives lack the ability to perceive nuance, or do they just reject fine detail and shades of grey for the sake of simplicity?
Are many conservatives lacking in the ability to perceive subtlety and degree (nuance), or do they simply ignore such detail for the sake of lazy-minded simplicity? Perhaps they're intellectually dishonest?? Otherwise, why do they so often paint whole groups of people with a broad brush, or take words that were used for illustration or example purposes out of context, and take them literally and fully? Do conservatives just have different kinds of brains than progressives?
Jehovah's Witnesses: Is the New World Translation really the MOST accurate English bible translation?
I don't normally do this - I have the utmost respect for Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs, and I have read a large portion of the New World Translation (well over half). I state here in advance that I sincerely apologize if anyone is offended by this question. It is NOT my intention to offend anyone. However... In a recent question, one answerer claimed without reservation that the New World Translation (NWT) was the most accurate bible translation. Now - I'm willing to concede Anglocentrism, and suppose that the writer of this claim was not thinking at all about foreign language bibles. However, here is my question - in two parts. 1) Do you believe that the NWT is more accurate than any other English translation? 2) If so, WHY do you believe that the NWT is more accurate than **any other** English translation? That is, what evidence do you have supporting that the NWT is more accurate than all other English translations? I'm not talking about 8 other English translations of questionable repute - I'm talking about all of them. http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_basic.html I have some concluding questions as well: 3) Is it *right* to claim that the NWT is the most accurate English translation unless someone has evaluated the accuracy of the *entire* text of the NWT with the *entire* text of every single other English translation? 4) Has anyone at all evaluated the accuracy of the entire text of the NWT and compared it to an evaluation of the accuracy of the entire text of any other bible? Maybe I'm wrong to let this "get my back up" so to speak - I guess it's because I'm trained as a scientist. When a claim is made, the claim should accurately reflect the meaning intended. The NWT with References has some very good features - I do not mean to discredit the NWT one iota. However, I have no faith in a claim such as this when it seems as if there is literally no evidence whatsoever to support the claim as stated. I sincerely mean no offense! Jim
Word by word japanese translation?
I'm looking for a word by word translation of the following lyrics (from the song Again by Yui) "Kono omoi wo keshite shimau ni wa Mada jinsei nagai deshou" I'm curious because the translation i commonly see is "What, you don't got enough life left to wipe these feelings out? " seems like a leap of faith to assume that is the meaning when the words being said are more like "cant put an end to these thoughts/feelings, yet life is long, isnt it?" and why are the particles ni and wa grouped together? My knowledge of Japanese isn't great i can only translate simple things but this sentence seems kind of difficult/vague. also the next few lyrics from the song "Yarinokoshiteru koto Yarinaoshite mitai kara" i guessed it as saying "the things left undone because i want to redo them" but i always thought mitai means "similar". so a word break down would be nice. thankyou