Again, you are not accounting for rape in war. Which the "unsuccessful men" on the winning side will do. Just look up conflict in Africa, rape is being used as a weapon.
Not true. The men who die in the fighting tend to be the unsuccessful ones. The ones who did not die, in addition to having the opportunity for rape (and in ancient times to take concubines home), would also come back as heros and have the opportunity to marry women from their own tribe.
These pressures are much more pronounced in polygamous societies, such as fundamentalist Muslim countries today, or ancient Jewish culture as documented in the Old Testament.
I recommend reading JFK Fuller "The Decisive battles of the western world and their influence on history" or any book about ancient history, which i define as before the battle of hasting.
And you will learn about the sheer amount of war there has been all over europe, really rampant. Example is during the great migration era. My point with all this is that in war their usually is rape, alot, which per definition is that the male chooses their spouse.
For more modern example read Catherine Merridale "Ivan's Wa. The Red Army 1939-45". Where their was extensive rape and pillage done by the red army.
Rough translation, i have a swedish copy. "Among the Soviet soldiers that fell on the preussian refuges that streamed out from Insterburg and Goldap was a young Officer by the name off Leonid Rabitjev. Decades later would this man gather the strength that is required to write about the offences he saw were being committed. "Women, mouther and children lie right and left along the road, and infront of each one their stands a screaming armada of men with their pants down", he wrote."
My point is that we can't really compare the trends of peaceful today with history in terms of reproduce, because a lot of women bore children of war, even up to relative modern times.
I'm saying in order to come up with new types of programming, you need to already know about how programming works currently, which limits your thinking.
What you mean is a non-deterministic programming language?
Similar to SICP 4.3? But different and expanded?
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-28.html...
Code where expressions has success and failure paths, where the failure simply is reversal?
Really bad analyse done by a person who haven't even bothered to find about basic psychological typing systems like MBTI or The big five.
Personally it seems that he describes TI (Introverted thinking) and then label "flow" as TE (Extraverted thinking) or SE (Sensing Extraverted).
Point being, their exist more then two ways to reason about making decision and living life. To me the author comes about as extremely self-centred and self-importante since he hasn't even bothered to look at the field of his topic.
He totally forgets to take account of feelers, people who make decisions based on how they will feel or how other people will feel after a decision.
For MBTI, it seemed like more of tenuous a J/P mapping. Structured being J, "go with the flow" being P. The structured, high-level/multi-level thinking is more of an extroverted judging function (aka, J-like), whereas the more step-by-step, adventurous thinking is more introverted judging (aka, more P-like).
However, I do stress that it is a tenuous connection. Neither list is a good list of J or P, most notably P.
As a side note, I do find it interesting that many attempts to describe personality or thought process often resemble MBTI in some way.
Completely disagree because he has provided reasoning based on personal observation of real-life situations.
That makes it amenable to understanding, evaluation, and practical application by himself and by other people, like me.
The same can't be said for very complex models like MBTI or the so-called "big five" which are difficult to understand and require complex scientific methods to study. Such models may be correct and may be useful, but it would be hard to evaluate their correctness and it would take a vast amount of effort to use them.
I completely agree.
This really bothered my during my AI course.
More then half of the course were just search algorithms, calling that intelligence is stretching the term.
What i actually have been thinking about is that ai researchers should instead look at having several databases of knowledge in one agents with maybe one "neutral" base database.
This is because of my recent interest in MBTI and Socionics systems based on carl jungs work. Here every human has four main functions and each function has two positions (attitudes) giving a total of 8 real functions and a total of 16 human types. Each real function vies and models the world differently and each human has a priority of their function chain, every human has all the functions just in varying strengthen.
So i have concluded that for an ai to actually be more like humans it needes multiple databses of knowledge, or at least one neutral database with views on it. Example could be a physical database but were the things could be label and valued according to function in the real world or emotional attachment based on the memory of the agent.
The important thing is the coexistent of multiple worlds instead of the singularity focus that our ai focus has. Most of the ai debate is between choosing of multiple instead of seeing the solution to have both (all) models.
Here i am finished i will just give an overview of the functions for anyone interested:
Thinking
Feeling
Sensing
Intution
Thinking and feeling are judging functions and sesning and intution are perception functions. Each function has a subjective (intravert) and an objective (extraverted) attitude (position).
For example intraverted feeling is paying attention to your own feelings and value system and being true to them. Extraverted feeling is knowing the groups values and taking care of your fellow humans.
