A thoughtful criticism of our approach—that incentives shape beliefs and preferences.
And my response.
https://twitter.com/TomFarsides/status/1140584579234971648 …
-
-
Replying to @Moshe_Hoffman @Plinz
I generally think that passions are driven by incentives at a much more primitive or developmentally early level. This is inspired by the research on savant talents; children with "savant syndrome" seem to be born talented but actually their talents evolve with practice.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @Plinz
Interesting. I can definitely buy into a critical period. Can you cite summarize some of the evidence? Or say more re savants?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is a model where a.) people are born with a degree (which can be low or high) of overall "disposition to specialize", which has some links to neurological morphology and sensory-perception traits; b.) autistics are born with a high disposition to specialize; and
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
c.) WHAT a child specializes in is a path-dependent process that depends on what they find rewarding *in the moment*. Success and approval are paths by which a child might develop a love/obsession with an activity; the more they do it, the better they get.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
It's inconceivable that humans could have evolved *inborn* savant talents as specific as "drawing insects" or "playing piano". There aren't neural correlates at birth for ultra-specific talents that depend on prior knowledge. These talents must therefore develop.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Compared to ordinary skills, savant talents seem more effortless, more unexplainable, and more "mechanical" (a perfect memory, perfect arithmetic calculation, perfect musical performance, photographically accurate drawing, with little affect or "personal touch".)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But on close examination, even savants make *some* expressive choices in their art, and their talents do change *somewhat* in response to emotions, incentives, and maturation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
My opinion is that savant talents are just a special case of learning where the learning curve is very steep and specific. Also, that a lot of diversity in human "personality" or "talent" is actually specialization, governed by *tight* feedback loops beginning in childhood.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
e.g. Robert Louis Stevenson became a "bookish" child because he was sickly and spent years mostly reading in bed. His "personality" was shaped by the fact that active play was painful and books were a source of joy.
-
-
(Of course, dispositions can also be *consciously* changed in adulthood; Stevenson intentionally lived a strenuous, adventurous life and cultivated physical courage.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Feedback on "inclusive-fitness" stuff (survival, reproduction, etc) is slower to arrive than the (probably dopaminergic) feedback loop involved in learning/skill-building (particularly motor) which makes "getting it right" feel directly rewarding.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
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.