Twitter seems to have sharply truncated my blocklist. This is a very good week for everyone to start being irritated at each other anew.
-
-
Ok n=3 is enough to conclude autism causes objective color perception. (Maybe
@slatestarcodex would like to investigate?) -
"strength of categorical perception of color did not differ for the two groups" (ASD/non-ASD) http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/761680/3/Sowden%202008%20COLOR%20AUTISM%20JADD.pdf …
-
“Beautiful Theory Ruined By Tedious Data (N=20)” But it did find significant differences, interestingly. Didn’t test this particular effect.
-
another one that shows worse category perception (and also better memory) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946707000451 …
-
Interesting… but subject population is *rather* different from my n=3:pic.twitter.com/jFMuvIkgIu
-
it would be an interesting hypothesis to propose early-life delay in category distinction followed by later-life improvement
-
Quick glance at that paper suggests way too many degrees of explanatory freedom already!
-
Although that hypothesis is a priori plausible and interesting
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
white and gold here. i mean i also knew the pixels were individually bluish and goldish, but i interpreted the dress as white and gold
-
I can duck/rabbit it either way, with some effort. But by default the inferred-illuminance effect gets swamped by objective pixel perception
-
I can duck/rabbit $CURRENT_CONTROVERSY, too, but that’s not much fun. Although potentially more useful I guess.
-
i managed to figure out a way to kiiinda do that too, which was interesting
-
Test-prep exercise for the Ideological Turing Exam.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.