I suspected it might be Abraham Lincoln when I could only see around the edge, but the more they revealed, the less sure I got, until by the end I was convinced it wasn’t him. You tagged the post “Abraham Lincoln”, so I guess I should’ve gone with my first thought.
I note that when I took one of those online facial recognition quizzes, I had a similar experience with Barack Obama: my first thought was that it was him, but then I thought “no, that can’t be him, he isn’t that old” and failed the question (like I did every other question on that quiz). I’d forgotten how much politics ages you. (Though in Lincoln’s case, the “no, that can’t be him” was because this face looks too wide to be him.)
(Who says there has to be an evolutionary advantage? All a trait really has to do to stick around is not get you killed too often.)
Same- I only needed 4 tiles taken away before I knew who it was. Personally, I’m familiar with that picture, so I didn’t have any doubts as more was revealed.
And no, there doesn’t have to be an evolutionary advantage, though it could be argued since it’s a pretty large subpopulation. And if it prevents you from not being killed too often, couldn’t that be considered an evolutionary advantage? I’m hardly an evolutionary psychologist, but I love hearing the arguments for or against certain traits to exist due to evolution.
It’s not that it prevents you from being killed too often, it’s that it doesn’t actively get you killed enough to have been weeded out of the gene pool.
Adverse mutations can stick around for a long time if they’re bundled with genes that otherwise do well. This happens a lot with populations that go through bottlenecks – whatever’s left afterwards is going to stick around for a while.
e.g. the whole vitamin c thing seems like a loss for no good reason and we’re all stuck with it.
As a sidenote, given the population boom in the last few hundred years there’s gotta be a whole bunch of weird mutations that exist in greater numbers than you ever would have expected.
Anyway have you heard the whole neanderthal / autism idea? @slartibartfastibast has a whole ancient aliens slideshow + youtube video on it.
As a further side note, I wonder what the trade off for lactase persistence is. It must be something, if lactase stopped persisting at some point.
>>It’s not that it prevents you from being killed too often, it’s that it doesn’t actively get you killed enough to have been weeded out of the gene pool.<<
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say, but I think she misunderstood and I didn’t bother trying to clarify.
Come to think of it, why *do* specialised facial-recognition modules exist? If you’re living in a band society, interacting with the same small group of people over and over, you can just use your general-object-recognition module for that. Yeah, it’ll take a few years to start getting the hang of it, but those’ll be childhood years in which you aren’t expected to be very competent at stuff anyway.
A lot of the life problems caused by prosopagnosia are not so much from “being bad at faces” as from “being *worse at faces than others expect you to be*”, and if people’s expectations were lower it would be much less of a problem. There’s a possible universe in which the default reaction to walking past a friend at the mall and they act like they’ve never met you is not “how rude, what did I ever do to them” but “yeah, the human brain’s not built to deal with crowds, makes sense that they didn’t recognise me. TBH, I only knew for sure it was them because they had that backpack with the hole patched with denim”.
—
>>Anyway have you heard the whole neanderthal / autism idea? @slartibartfastibast has a whole ancient aliens slideshow + youtube video on it.<<
Link?
Come to think of it, why do specialised facial-recognition modules exist? If you’re living in a band society, interacting with the same small group of people over and over, you can just use your general-object-recognition module for that.
So if the example you give later (walking past a friend at the mall and not recognizing them) is the sort of thing that actually happens, then I’d guess general recognition without the extra facial recognition just isn’t good enough.
Assuming the friend is an actual friend, not just a friendly acquantaince (inside the dunbar group?), I think not recognizing them automatically would matter.
If we can do a little evolutionary speculation here, in the ancestral environment, telling whether the guy you just saw in the forest is in your band, or a stranger, or the particular guy in the band who would really benefit if you weren’t around is a matter of life and death.
And for babies, recognizing your mother does seem pretty important.
Not sure about the link. I’d have to dig it out. If you want to siikr for it maybe try neanderthal or eusocial or something.
>>Assuming the friend is an actual friend, not just a friendly acquantaince (inside the dunbar group?), I think not recognizing them automatically would matter.<<
Well, whenever I hear people draw a distinction between “friend” and “friendly acquaintance”, they almost always define “friend” so strictly that I have had maybe one or two friends in the past decade, and no friends whose faces I saw frequently. (honestly, where do the friend-vs-acquaintance people *find* so many people who don’t respond to interpersonal problems by contemptuously brushing them off)
I can reliably recognise housemates at the mall, and have nobody else whose faces I have as much experience with as one would have with one’s band members. I can *suspect* that a person at the mall is my boss, but not with confidence; however, I’ve only been around him ~[3 gradually increasing to 8]† hours/week for 1.5 years, so it’s to be expected that I’m only in the middle stages of learning his face.
(He is not faceblind–or at least, he’s significantly better at keeping track of which customers are regulars than I am–but he still didn’t spot me. I asked about how his Boxing Day went a couple days later and confirmed that he was at the mall that day, so it probably *was* him I saw.)
—
>>If we can do a little evolutionary speculation here, in the ancestral environment, telling whether the guy you just saw in the forest is in your band, or a stranger, or the particular guy in the band who would really benefit if you weren’t around is a matter of life and death.<<
While this isn’t all that different from what I said, it does make it more clear why, if someone *did* mutate an unusually good facial-recognition ability, it would get selected for and eventually become the norm. If you don’t know whether someone’s an enemy *and neither do they*, that’s far less dangerous than if they know you’re enemies and you don’t.
Also, not knowing by the face whether someone’s in your tribe is something even mezzoprosopons or whatever the hell we’re calling them have to deal with these days, and they deal with it by simply making tribe members wear distinctive clothing when there’s a chance they might encounter an enemy [link].
(and I feel like a lot of the reasons that *I* refrain from murdering people would still apply to the stalking-a-rival-in-the-forest thing, but perhaps my threshold for “I am willing to accept X risk of Y-severity punishment†† in order to get the benefits of committing this crime” is unusually strict; probably an anxiety thing)
—
†I work more hours than this, but these are specifically the hours that overlap with the hours he’s there.
††note: if you assault someone and they fight back and hurt *you*, that also counts as a punishment for this purpose
Tags:
#reply via reblog #is the blue I see the same as the blue you see #prosopagnosia #evolution #murder mention
Hi everyone, just a festive reminder to always par boil your potatoes for 10 minutes, then toss them in a sieve and sprinkle them with sea salt and black pepper and rosemary before you roast them in sizzling olive oil, because you deserve EVERYTHING
Honestly this is so thoughtful why haven’t I heard of this before?
Put them in a pan of cold, salted water, then bring slowly to the boil and simmer until the edges of the potatoes are slightly soft – should be between 5 and 10 minutes. Drain them and toss them in a sieve briefly to make them slightly fluffy at the edges. Put into a roasting pan full of hot oil, making the potatoes one layer thick, and sprinkle with sea salt, black pepper and rosemary. Cook at 200 degrees C for about 45 minutes, then eat them and taste nirvana.
How thinly sliced?
Cut into quarters!!!
Tags:
#this sounds pretty much like the thing we call ”crispy potatoes” #except we use garlic powder instead of rosemary #sometimes paprika #or leave it out entirely and just use salt/pepper #they are indeed great #food #recs #recipes
dude seeing these Mega high quality images of the surface of mars that we now have has me fucked up. Like. Mars is a place. mars is a real actual place where one could hypothetically stand. It is a physical place in the universe. ITS JUST OUT THERE LOOKING LIKE UH IDK A REGULAR OLD DESERT WITH LOTS OF ROCKS BUT ITS A WHOLE OTHER PLANET?
LIKE THIS JUST LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE A PERSON’S BACKYARD. LIKE YEA A LITTLE DUSTY MAYBE THERE WAS A SANDSTORM BUT THAT’S COOL I’M JUST GONNA WALK DOWN TO THE STORE P S Y C H YOU’RE ON MARS BICH!
i hate to be rude and intrude on this post but we have decent pictures of the surface Venus too!
Now that I’ve walked everyone through the research I’ve done on captive big cat populations in the United States (all tagged #CrouchingTigerHiddenData) and a majority of the data that came out of it it, let’s talk about why it was important to examine on a practical level.
(Photo Credit: M. Hummel-Uzzi)
Big cats are iconic, beloved animals. It’s hard not to care about them and and about conserving them. The only way conservation strategies work is when they’re based on accurate data. The only way laws that keep people safe when dangerous animals are involved work is when they’re based on accurate data. In today’s world of “fake news’ and “alternative facts”, there is nothing more dangerous than actions based on misinformation. You’re probably following this blog specifically because of the insistence on data, citations, and sources.
So you should care about the big cat research I’ve done because what I’m telling you is that the dominant narrative in the United States – the one taken as fact by the zoo industry, the sanctuary groups, the animal advocacy organizations, and even our legislators – is mainly based on “facts” that aren’t real anymore. The effects of that are already tangible, and are primed to get a hell of a lot worse shortly. If you care about the conservation of big cats, or you want effective advocacy to ensure the welfare of captive big cats in the United States, this is a problem.
Here’s a summary of what I’ve personally been able to prove that goes against what’s “known” to be fact:
That all sounds pretty great, right? A major issue that did pose a lot of safety risk has been resolved successfully! There isn’t actually a captive big cat crisis in the United States!
And it is great. Except for the fact that the sanctuary industry and the animal rights groups aren’t talking about it. In fact, they’re still saying exactly the opposite: that there’s a huge problem involving tens of thousands of captive big cats that requires immediate action and support and lots of donations from the general public. Why would they do that?
Maybe they don’t know. After all, a lot of my write-ups did focus on the fact that privately owned exotic populations aren’t an easy topic to study. But… I was able to figure it out. Me, a lone researcher without funding or any professional backing, was able to compile data and assess the trends in it. Why haven’t these organizations that are so concerned about the captive big cat crisis in the country done the same work? My research was based on a lot of data and testimony derived directly from those organizations, so it’s not like they wouldn’t already have any easy time of it.
If the groups that are pushing legislation to “fix” the big cat crisis, or asking people to donate money to help them advocate for and rescue all the “backyard cats” being harmed by the crisis haven’t actually put in the effort to find out if their work is successful? That looks pretty negligent. The public trusts sanctuaries and their accrediting groups to be telling them the truth about the state of captive big cat issues in the United States, but all they’re currently doing is recycling a narrative that’s two-decades old.
The other option for what’s going on is less charitable. Maybe these organizations do know things have changed, and have chosen to mislead the public. There are certainly things that seem to imply that, like the tacit acknowledgement I found in court documents that there aren’t actually that many people breeding cubs unethically anymore. One of the most vocal sanctuaries even puts in their reports how much they’ve seen the need for rescue drop – and that most of their new animals are now coming from other USDA-licensed facilities – yet continues to put materials in front of congress about the plight of tens of thousands of big cats that need to be rescued from backyards and private owners in the United States. This is just a selection of statements currently on live, up-to-date websites maintained by sanctuary and animal advocacy groups about the “captive big cat crisis” right now, in 2019:
“An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 big cats languish in deplorable conditions in backyards, roadside zoos, and traveling exhibits throughout the US. Tigers and lions should not be pets or bred and exploited for profit. While some states have regulations that attempt to protect big cats, decades of experience have proven they don’t work.” – Big Cat Rescue
“By today’s environmental standards, a self-sustaining tiger population – based on 7,000 plus animals – would be considered a success story. However, when those 7,000 tigers are found in captivity – living outside of our public zoo system – it is considered a travesty.” – The Wild Animal Sanctuary
“An estimated 10,000 big cats are kept as pets and for profit in places like basements, backyards and roadside zoos throughout the U.S. today. In fact, the U.S. is thought to be home to more captive tigers than are found in the wild.” – The International Fund for Animal Welfare
“Most of the estimated 5,000 to 7,000 captive tigers in the U.S. are held at roadside and traveling zoos, pseudo-sanctuaries, and private menageries where they are subjected to extreme confinement and neglect.” – The Humane Society of the United States
“There are more tigers in backyards across the U.S. than in all of the zoos put together.” The Wildcat Sanctuary
A great example of how fast and loose a lot of these statements play with data and sourcing is that last quote. It’s attributed on the web page to Ron Tilson – AZA’s tiger guy – but he died in 2013 and I haven’t found a source yet for the statement they’re claiming he made. That’s maybe excusable if you’re just running a personal website, but that’s really low-quality work for a professional education and advocacy group dealing with big cat issues on a federal level.
Quotes like what are listed above are frequently seen used to promote legislation at a state and federal level, the best current example of which is the Big Cat Public Safety Act. I’ve broken down the most recent version of the bill (from the 115th Congress): while it’s marketed as a way to end the “big cat overpopulation crisis” in United States, what it would also do is place massive restrictions on the operation of zoological facilities holding big cats, and would potentially even effect the function of conservation breeding problems. (Bills that impact conservation work while trying to restrict pet ownership of big cats have occurred before – Michigan passed a bill in 2000 that has banned even AZA conservation breeding in the state for the past 19 years). The Big Cat Public Safety Act has been introduced in congress multiple times – and will be introduced again during 2019 – and the messaging is always focused on marketing two concepts to congresspeople: that they need to protect their constituents from the major safety risk posed by multiple thousands of big cats living secretly in backyards in their communities, and that they need to save these thousands of big cats from suffering in horrible living conditions. Those sound like really compelling arguments for passing a federal law … if you don’t know they’re all based on completely outdated information.
So what we’re left with is a really uncomfortable truth: either the major groups that are currently involved in captive big cat advocacy are completely out-of-touch with the reality of big cat populations in the United States, or they’re aware of it and purposefully misleading the public in order to fulfill their agendas. I don’t know which scenario is true. I can’t imagine the major animal advocacy groups don’t have the money and manpower to do follow-up studies on the efficacy of their own work. I also can’t imagine that sanctuary groups, the majority of whom do very good work, would lie to their supporters in order to get laws passed.
As someone who loves big cats and wants to see successful conservation work and effective advocacy done on their behalf that’s based on accurate and up-to-date information, on a practical level, it doesn’t matter. Whichever way you slice it, it’s a huge problem that all of the major organizations influencing what can be done with big cats in the United States are perpetuating massive amounts of misinformation and show no apparent interest in rectifying that situation.
Links to the full #CrouchingTigerHiddenData tumblr writeups and the research pieces are below the cut. If you think my work is important, please consider supporting it through Patreon or Ko-Fi.
#reblogging this one because it’s the one with the table of contents #interesting #tiger #debunking #this probably deserves some warning tag but I am not sure what
aka “A attempt at resolving/achieving something with less effort than is required for success, & a high probability of it proving merely futile & faintly unpleasant’
I can support this as a turn of phrase.
I think you’ve really tapped into something here.
Tags:
#language #puns #(and tangentially:) #our home and cherished land
I suspected it might be Abraham Lincoln when I could only see around the edge, but the more they revealed, the less sure I got, until by the end I was convinced it wasn’t him. You tagged the post “Abraham Lincoln”, so I guess I should’ve gone with my first thought.
I note that when I took one of those online facial recognition quizzes, I had a similar experience with Barack Obama: my first thought was that it was him, but then I thought “no, that can’t be him, he isn’t that old” and failed the question (like I did every other question on that quiz). I’d forgotten how much politics ages you. (Though in Lincoln’s case, the “no, that can’t be him” was because this face looks too wide to be him.)
(Who says there has to be an evolutionary advantage? All a trait really has to do to stick around is not get you killed too often.)
Same- I only needed 4 tiles taken away before I knew who it was. Personally, I’m familiar with that picture, so I didn’t have any doubts as more was revealed.
And no, there doesn’t have to be an evolutionary advantage, though it could be argued since it’s a pretty large subpopulation. And if it prevents you from not being killed too often, couldn’t that be considered an evolutionary advantage? I’m hardly an evolutionary psychologist, but I love hearing the arguments for or against certain traits to exist due to evolution.
It’s not that it prevents you from being killed too often, it’s that it doesn’t actively get you killed enough to have been weeded out of the gene pool.
Adverse mutations can stick around for a long time if they’re bundled with genes that otherwise do well. This happens a lot with populations that go through bottlenecks – whatever’s left afterwards is going to stick around for a while.
e.g. the whole vitamin c thing seems like a loss for no good reason and we’re all stuck with it.
As a sidenote, given the population boom in the last few hundred years there’s gotta be a whole bunch of weird mutations that exist in greater numbers than you ever would have expected.
Anyway have you heard the whole neanderthal / autism idea? @slartibartfastibast has a whole ancient aliens slideshow + youtube video on it.
As a further side note, I wonder what the trade off for lactase persistence is. It must be something, if lactase stopped persisting at some point.
>>It’s not that it prevents you from being killed too often, it’s that it doesn’t actively get you killed enough to have been weeded out of the gene pool.<<
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say, but I think she misunderstood and I didn’t bother trying to clarify.
Come to think of it, why *do* specialised facial-recognition modules exist? If you’re living in a band society, interacting with the same small group of people over and over, you can just use your general-object-recognition module for that. Yeah, it’ll take a few years to start getting the hang of it, but those’ll be childhood years in which you aren’t expected to be very competent at stuff anyway.
A lot of the life problems caused by prosopagnosia are not so much from “being bad at faces” as from “being *worse at faces than others expect you to be*”, and if people’s expectations were lower it would be much less of a problem. There’s a possible universe in which the default reaction to walking past a friend at the mall and they act like they’ve never met you is not “how rude, what did I ever do to them” but “yeah, the human brain’s not built to deal with crowds, makes sense that they didn’t recognise me. TBH, I only knew for sure it was them because they had that backpack with the hole patched with denim”.
—
>>Anyway have you heard the whole neanderthal / autism idea? @slartibartfastibast has a whole ancient aliens slideshow + youtube video on it.<<
Brinens and Things 