So, does this mean it’s ok to just use “more” or "mine" as a number?
Aboriginal Kids Can Count Without Numbers
ScienceDaily (Aug. 19, 2008) — Knowing the words for numbers is not necessary to be able to count, according to a new study of aboriginal children by UCL (University College London) and the University of Melbourne. The study of the aboriginal children – from two communities which do not have words or gestures for numbers – found that they were able to copy and perform number-related tasks.
The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that we possess an innate mechanism for counting, which may develop differently in children with dyscalculia.
Professor Brian Butterworth, lead author from the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, says: “Recently, an extreme form of linguistic determinism has been revived which claims that counting words are needed for children to develop concepts of numbers above three. That is, to possess the concept of ‘five’ you need a word for five. Evidence from children in numerate societies, but also from Amazonian adults whose language does not contain counting words, has been used to support this claim.
“However, our study of aboriginal children suggests that we have an innate system for recognizing and representing numerosities – the number of objects in a set – and that the lack of a number vocabulary should not prevent us from doing numerical tasks that do not require number words.”
We shouldn’t be surprised. We know some entrepreneurs in Brooklyn who use a very similar approach—especially if you’re late with the payments.
This just in—good-looking people are pleasing to the eye. Also, guys like to look at women who don’t look like guys. Film at 11.
Why Symmetry Predicts Bodily Attractiveness
ScienceDaily (Aug. 19, 2008) — A study by Dr William Brown and colleagues in Brunel University’s School of Social Sciences and School of Engineering and Design, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), has revealed an explanation for the correlation between attractiveness and bodily characteristics like height, breast size, long legs, broad shoulders or a curvy figure.
The study also explored the degree of asymmetries between the left and right sides of the body, which is widely believed to be an indirect measure of developmental quality in many species including humans.
Through their research at Brunel’s Centre for Cognition and Neuroimaging, Dr Brown and a team of scientists identified a property dubbed ‘body masculinity’, a mathematical fusion of traits including greater height, wider shoulders, smaller breasts and shorter legs.
Key findings of the study included:
* When asked to assess the attractiveness of female 3D body images, men rated those with less body masculinity most attractive, and vice versa
* High masculinity correlated with fewer departures from perfect bodily symmetry in males but with more asymmetry in females, suggesting that those with good development and health may have bodies that exaggerate sex-typical bodily features.
Commenting on the research, Dr Brown explains: “It is widely believed that human beings are attracted to one another as a result of genotypic and phenotypic quality – in other words, their prospect as a mate who will yield higher quality offspring for the chooser.”
He concludes: “It seems that because bodily asymmetries are too subtle to be seen with the naked eye, evolution has instead engineered more conspicuous signals and displays, such as broad shoulders, curvy waist lines or smooth dance moves to indicate mate quality.”
Oh yeah, gettin' busy as an engineering problem. That’s a worthwhile endeavor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment