はてなキーワード: MAYとは
2016年10月版にも入ってるみたいだけど、2016年ってコロナ前じゃね？
1.3.3.4 Brand Protection and Use of the Visa-Owned Marks
A Member must not use the Visa-Owned Marks:
• In any manner that may bring the Visa-Owned Marks or Visa Inc. or its affiliates into disrepute
• In relation to, or for the purchase or trade of, photographs, video imagery, computer-generated images, cartoons, simulation, or any other media or activities including, but not limited to, any of the following:
- Child pornography
- Bestiality
- Rape (or any other non-consensual sexual behavior)
- Non-consensual mutilation of a person or body part
A Member that does not comply with these requirements will be subject to non-compliance assessments prescribed under the Global Brand Protection Program and/or, in the Europe Region, the Electronic Commerce Merchant Monitoring Program.
A Member must not use the Visa-Owned Marks
日本語訳はこうな？
会員は、以下の場合においてVisa所有のマークを使用してはなりません：
生成AIのClaudeが3.7になってめちゃくちゃ性能上がって簡単な要求にも質の良い長文をドサーって出してくれるようになって、ボクは技術者でも商売人でもないから使うのは無料版で自分のおかず用のエロ小説生成なんだけど、これも長文で質の良い文章を一気に出力してくれるから重宝して何度も何度も繰り返し使ってたら、ある時ガクッと生成小説のレベルが落ちてしまい右上に「Switched to Claude Haiku Due to high demand, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is temporarily unavailable for free plans. Claude 3.5 Haiku is faster but may provide less detailed responses.」のメッセージ。お前の要求はエロ過ぎるから3.7は使わせませんってか。これアカウントログアウトして別のアカウント作ってログインしても同じメッセージが出るのよ。もう3.7なしじゃAI生成のエロ小説に満足できない体になってしまったのに酷い。
ほーん、そうなんか。
別に自分も投稿歴があるわけじゃないからよく知らんけど、検索して公式の投稿ガイドライン https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html
We only accept submissions from registered authors. If you are a new user or are submitting to a new category, you may be required to find endorsements.
https://note.com/beatangel/n/nf3cc050ac5ba
男性の脳の総容積は平均して体格差を考慮しても男性の方が大きく、1般的に女性より大きいことは以前から
一般においてもwikipediaに脳の容積に性差がある記述があるぐらいには既知なので
学問の世界で否定する人はおらんのでは？タブーでもなんでもないと思う、高卒だしアカデミアの世界は知らんけど
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014976341500250X?ref=quillette.com
因みに研究分析によれば脳の総容積の違いはIQの分散（違いを説明する為の因子としてどの重要か）の約16%を占めるそうである。
ソースとしている論文のハイライトにはBrain size is not a necessary cause for human IQ differencesとあり
技術の進歩により脳の大きさとIQの相関が今まで言われていたよりずっと小さいことが分かったと書いてある
また、この論文は最後に「However, invoking the literature on cross-species comparisons and primate cognitive evolution to argue for brain size as an isomorphic proxy for human intelligence differences is not warranted. Such assumptions are」と釘を刺しているが
なぜ釘を刺さないといけないのかということを彼自身が証明してしまっている…
2015年に504人の調査では子供において負の相関関係（皮質が薄いほど認知能力がある）が確認された。
このような事実は何故物議を醸すのか？
女の脳は男よりも厚い、しかし、薄いほど認知能力がある、よって女は男より認知能力が劣ると言いたいようだが
These findings suggest that intelligence may be more related to the magnitude and timing of changes in brain structure during development than to brain structure per se, and that the cortex is never completed but shows continuing intelligence-dependent development.
単純に薄いほどIQが高いという話ではなくどのタイミングで薄くなるかということが重要な様
In the more intelligent young adults, this relationship reverses so that by the age of 42 a thicker cortex is associated with higher intelligence
https://note.com/beatangel/n/nd0232cdd3c61
女性の発達障害について2昔前は「発達障害は男性的な特徴の過剰化が原因であり、従って女性にはあまり存在しない（極端な男性脳）」と言われてきた。
しかし、発達障害概念の広がりに伴って女性当事者が増え始め、また脳の状態をスキャンするとそこまで男女比がないことなどが明らかになり、
1昔前は「女性当事者はソーシャルスキルに優れているので発達障害症状を誤魔化せてしまい、周囲から気付かれにくい」と言われてきた。
しかし定量的に比較した結果、ソーシャルスキルに性差がないことが判明し、
今（2021年）では「女性はジェンダーバイアスによりコミュ障でも男性より好意的に見られやすく、また良いも悪いも女性社会の強烈な同調圧力により逸脱を抑え込まれてる」説が唱えられている。
彼は以前の記事でこのように書いている、ASDおよびADHDの男女比に大きな偏りがあるがそれは脳の性差ではないと
しかし、彼が一番最初に示した論文は違うことを言っている、脳の容積以外にも様々なデータをとり脳に性差があることを示し
それらが一部の精神疾患における男女の偏りの原因を解明する一歩になるのではないかと、論文中でも以下が言及されている
Why Are Autism Spectrum Conditions More Prevalent in Males?
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001081
もちろん、認知症のように女が男より多い疾患もありそれらにも言及されているし
脳の性差がこれらと関連していると決定づけているわけではない
彼の良い所はソースを示してくれること、実際、興味深いものが多いが
記事の信ぴょう性は薄いというのが個人的な感想、どうもチェリーピッキングしてるっぽいから自分で論文読めばいいと思う
アンチフェミニズムを拗らせた結果、憎んでいる相手と同じになっていないか？
一番古い5年前のnoteを読んでみたがこの時の彼は好印象だった
”スコットランド政府は、そのセーフアクセスゾーンと称する範囲に家があ
る市⺠たちに⼿紙を送りつけて、⾃宅内の詩的なお祈りですら、この法律違反になりかねな
いぞと警告したんです。当然ながら、政府はその読者に対し、イギリスやヨーロッパでこの
思考犯罪を犯した疑いのある同胞たちを通報するよう奨励したんです。” 原文：This last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime in Britain and across Europe.
2024年9月、スコットランド政府は「Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024」を施行し、すべての中絶サービス提供施設の周囲200メートル以内を「安全アクセスゾーン」と定めました。このゾーン内では、女性やスタッフの意思決定に影響を与えたり、アクセスを妨げたり、恐怖や嫌がらせ、不安を引き起こす行為が犯罪とされています。
ttps://www.gov.scot/news/safe-access-zones/ 政府公式ページ
”ニュース
スコットランドのすべての中絶サービスの周りの200メートルの保護ゾーンが設置されました。
これらのゾーン内では、サービスにアクセスするための女性とスタッフの決定に影響を与える可能性のある方法で意図的または無謀に行動することは、今や刑事犯罪です。彼らのアクセスを妨げる;そうでなければ、警報、嫌がらせ、または苦痛を引き起こします。
スコットランド警察は法律を施行する責任があります。法律を破った人は、裁判所の手続きに応じて、£10,000までの罰金を科されるか、無制限の罰金が科せられます。
犯罪が犯されたかどうかを判断することは、スコットランド警察、クラウンオフィス、検察庁、裁判所の問題になります。各ケースの事実と状況に応じて、犯罪行為のいくつかの例には、中絶サービスにアクセスしないように誰かに説得し、クリニックや病院に出入りしようとする人々を取り囲み、チラシを配ることが含まれます。、宗教的な説教と沈黙の徹夜。原文；approaching someone to try and persuade them not to access abortion services, surrounding people as they try to go in or out of the clinic or hospital, handing out leaflets, religious preaching and silent vigils.
“セーフアクセスゾーンの導入は、女性の中絶権を保護する上で重要なマイルストーンです–誰も女性の個人的な医療決定に干渉する権利がなく、法律により、そのことが十分に明らかになっています。
“ジリアン・マッカイと、この法律を進展させるための彼らの仕事に関係したすべての人々に感謝します。私は特に、法案のプロセス中に発言し、経験を共有することに信じられないほどの勇気を示した女性を認識したいと思います。
“すべての中絶サービスの周りの200メートルの新しいゾーンは、女性が脅迫を受けずにヘルスケアに安全にアクセスできるようにするのに役立ちます–。この法律は、多くの人が深く個人的で困難な決定を下すことに信じられないほど脆弱であると感じるときに、女性を保護することです。”
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
特に、政府が配布したガイダンスでは、「意図的または無謀に」行われる「宗教的説教」や「静かな集会（silent vigils）」などの活動が禁止される可能性があると明記されています。さらに、エディンバラの「安全アクセスゾーン」内の住民に送付された手紙では、自宅内での行為であっても、法律に抵触する可能性があると警告されています。
https://www.gbnews.com/news/praying-at-home-illegal-scottland-safe-access-zones-abortion-law
”スコットランドの新しい「安全なアクセスゾーン」中絶法では、自宅での祈りは違法である可能性 公開日:2024年10月10日 -”
”エディンバラの「安全なアクセスゾーン」の居住者に投稿された手紙は、彼らが自宅で実行された訴訟のために刑事訴追に直面する可能性があると警告したとテレグラフは報じている。”
この法律の施行により、特定の地域内での祈りや宗教的活動が制限されることとなり、住民や宗教団体から懸念の声が上がっています。一方で、政府はこの措置が中絶サービスを利用する女性やスタッフの安全とプライバシーを守るためのものであると説明しています。
ttps://www.gbnews.com/news/abortion-clinics-silent-prayer-safe-zones-banned-home-office
”内務省は、中絶反対運動家が静かに診療所外で祈ることを禁止することを検討していると述べました。”
”沈黙の祈りは、心の関与であり、神への祈りの中で考えられており、1998年の人権法の下で絶対的な権利として保護されており、それ自体では、いかなる状況でも犯罪と見なされるべきではありません。”
いちおう揺り戻しも来ている模様
ttps://www.gbnews.com/news/video-silent-prayer-demonstrator-claims-police-turn-blind-eye-attacks-pro-lifers
“クレイジーなことは、私（2回逮捕された）が静かに路上で祈っているとき、通りにも止まっている他の人々がいるということです。誰かがタバコを持っているかもしれません、誰かが友人を待っているか、タクシーを待っているかもしれません。
“警察はこれらの人々のいずれにも近づかず、彼らに尋ねません、彼らは祈っていますか、彼らは何を考えていますか？
“しかし、地元の人々の何人かは私がプロライフであることを知っており、警察に連絡するので、警察は彼らをサポートし、地域の分裂の精神を強制するのを助けました。”
J.D.ヴァンス米副大統領の、ミュンヘン安保会議 (2025/2024)での発言 - 山形浩生の「経済のトリセツ」 202 users cruel.hatenablog.com 政治と経済
https://cruel.org/candybox/JDvanceMunich2025_j.pdf
”(注： 書き起こしは以下から取ったが YouTube に上がっている実際の演説を聴いても遺漏はない。 https://thespectator.com/topic/read-jd-vance-full-speech-decay-europe/ )”
ーーとあるが、thespectator.comのテキストデータは「要登録」なので他を探そう
”(訳注：この演説のほぼ当⽇に、ミュンヘンで難⺠申請中のアフガン移⺠が⾞でデモ隊に突っ込んで数⼗
⼈を負傷させたテロ事件のことを指している)”
https://www.bbc.com/japanese/articles/ckgrjl6n68xo 日本語ニュースはこれなど
ttps://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/13/europe/munich-car-hits-people-intl/index.html
”I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election.”
”(訳注：2024 年にルーマニア憲法法廷が、⼤統領選第⼀次投票が外国の介⼊で歪んで右派のジョルジェ
スク候補が優位だったのを無効にした話。これに対して元欧州委員のティエリー・ブレトンがそれを歓迎
する発⾔をした)”
ルーマニア大統領選事件 はWIKIPEDIA で項目が立っているttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusations_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2024_Romanian_presidential_election
ttps://rmc.bfmtv.com/actualites/international/on-l-a-fait-en-roumanie-thierry-breton-reagit-aux-ingerences-de-musk-en-allemagne-avec-l-afd_AN-202501090232.html
Thierry Bretonがルーマニア大統領選に関して述べたのはこれ（フランス語）
ttps://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2025-000150_EN.html#def1
パブコメ投書箱的なところで、「元とは言え欧州委員がこう言ってるんだがお前ら欧州委員会はそれについてどう思ってるんじゃい」という投書も
「2025年1月9日、元欧州委員会委員ティエリーブレトンはフランスのテレビチャンネルRMCストーリーに、ドイツのAfD党がドイツの選挙で勝利した場合、ルーマニアで行われた‘と同様に、欧州連合によって破棄される可能性があると語った。彼は言った[1]。
2025年1月12日、何千人ものルーマニア人が選挙の無効化に抗議し、国家主権への攻撃と見なされたこの決定に対する不満を表明するためにブカレストの街を訪れました。
1。 欧州委員会は、ドイツでの選挙の無効化の可能性に関するティエリーブレトンの発言を支持しますか？」
ttps://www.romaniajournal.ro/politics/ex-commissioner-breton-what-was-done-in-romania-may-be-needed-in-germany/
背景として知っておきたいのはティエリーブレトンとマスクは犬猿の仲、お互い口撃しあっている間柄ということ
ttps://www.brusselstimes.com/1388595/elon-musk-calls-former-eu-digital-chief-breton-tyrant-of-europe-tbtb
ttps://www.nli-research.co.jp/report/detail/id=80510
欧州委員会によるTikTok監査－ルーマニア選挙における外国勢力の干渉
ニッセイ基礎研究所保険研究部 専務取締役 研究理事 兼 ヘルスケアリサーチセンター長
松澤 登
「欧州委員会は、選挙プロセス自体の適否はルーマニア国民が判断すべきことであり、欧州委員会の権能を超えるとしてその内容には干渉しないとする。ただし、DSA上で、特に巨大なプラットフォーム(Very large online platform、VLOP)に指定されているTikTokのルーマニア選挙における行為については、DSA違反かどうかの監視（monitoring）を強化するとした。」
EU公式には「気に食わないやつらが勝ったらバシバシその選挙を無効にしてやるぜぇ」などとは言っていない（当然）
というわけで、ティエリーブレトンの発言を象徴に欧州政治家全体を印象付ける言説には要注意
（続く）
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator at root@localhost to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator at root@localhost to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
例えば、
https://github.com/timdetering/Wintellect.PowerCollections/tree/master
License.txt
4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION
Commercial distributors of software may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the like. While this license is intended to facilitate the commercial use of the Program, the Contributor who includes the Program in a commercial product offering should do so in a manner which does not create potential liability for other Contributors. Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. The obligations in this section do not apply to any claims or Losses relating to any actual or alleged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor must: a) promptly notify the Commercial Contributor in writing of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Contributor to control, and cooperate with the Commercial Contributor in, the defense and any related settlement negotiations. The Indemnified Contributor may participate in any such claim at its own expense.
For example, a Contributor might include the Program in a commercial product offering, Product X. That Contributor is then a Commercial Contributor. If that Commercial Contributor then makes performance claims, or offers warranties related to Product X, those performance claims and warranties are such Commercial Contributor's responsibility alone. Under this section, the Commercial Contributor would have to defend claims against the other Contributors related to those performance claims and warranties, and if a court requires any other Contributor to pay any damages as a result, the Commercial Contributor must pay those damages.
要約すると裁判でここの作者が損害賠償を命じられそうになった場合、商用ソフトの提供元は裁判に協力しないといけないし、求償請求にも応じないといけないとある。
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
Please consider the histroy of humanity from biological perpsecitve and current known fact in nearby universe, which expo-planet (from the Sol system perspective) is most likely to have civlizaed society? Please add percentage next to it in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanet civilization likelihoodを28 秒行う
Evaluating planetary prospects
OK, I’m looking at the likelihood of a civilized society on an exoplanet within our Solar System. I’ll consider biological history and current space knowledge, aiming to identify the most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from our Solar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard's Star, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1, focusing on their habitable zones and available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilized society likelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m noting key exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which have Earth-like characteristics and are in habitable zones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advanced civilizations.
I'm gathering info on planets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, considering factors like magnetic fields, atmospheres, and proximity to G-type stars for their potential to support advanced civilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despite being close and around a red dwarf star, might support life if it has a magnetic field and atmosphere. This makes me think about its potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimating civilization probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculative percentages based on the Drake equation and the lack of evidence for intelligent life.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names and civilization likelihood percentages, grounded in the long timeline of life's evolution, despite the speculative nature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering their star types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advanced civilizations from our solar system's viewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due to its closeness and observational potential, despite concerns about its flare star dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'm focusing on exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, and K2-18b, aiming to chart their likelihood of hosting a civilized society based on current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilized society, considering Earth's long biological history.
Refining odds
I'm considering the astronomical timeline for intelligent life on Earth, leading me to assign even lower speculative odds for exoplanets like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrary percentages, clearly noting the speculative nature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience's basic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrary percentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculative nature, and ensuring the data is accessible for young audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating a markdown table with speculative percentages for the likelihood of civilized life on exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoretical nature and considering the understanding level of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mapping out a markdown chart with speculative percentages for the likelihood of a civilized society on exoplanets, mindful of the complexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecing together markdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b's reduced civilized life chance due to the red dwarf's activity. This inclusion highlights the speculative nature of the analysis.
Piecing together speculative odds
I’m detailing a markdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanet likelihoods, considering environmental challenges and adding a disclaimer about the speculative nature and lack of evidence.
Piecing together
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b for its proximity and silent star, but I’ll add a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advanced civilizations' hypothetical likelihood.
Assessing civilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligent life on Earth, which suggests that the odds of any habitable planet developing a complex civilization might be as low as a few percent.
Below is a very speculative chart that—based on what we know about Earth’s long, winding path from simple life to a “civilized society” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives some fun, made‑up percentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists have not yet found any proof of life (let alone advanced civilizations) on any exoplanet. These numbers are just playful estimates to help you think about the ideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an Advanced Civilization on Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet Estimated Likelihood of a Civilized Society
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
How Did We (Very Roughly) Guess These Numbers?
Earth’s Example:
On Earth, life began as simple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that built complex societies. This long journey suggests that—even if a planet is in the “habitable zone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilized society might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
This is the closest exoplanet to us. Even though its star (Proxima Centauri) is a red dwarf that sometimes sends out strong flares (which might harm life), its closeness makes it one of our most interesting candidates. That’s why we give it a slightly higher guess (~2%).
These planets are part of a group orbiting a very cool star. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaning one side always faces the star), so the chance of a complex, advanced civilization might be a bit lower.
LHS 1140 b:
This planet is promising in some ways but is a little farther away and around a dimmer star, so our playful estimate is even lower.
All of these percentages are extremely rough guesses based on what little we understand about the conditions for life and intelligence. Scientists use ideas like the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concrete evidence, these numbers remain just for fun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring these ideas—and remember, space is full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equation itself and see if this euqation is acculate or more opition in the equation you will use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation's value
OK, let me see. The Drake Equation isn't a precise formula; it's more of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrial civilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluating its conceptual nature, its uncertain parameters, and its criticism to conclude on its reliability as an accurate predictive model.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mapping out the Drake Equation as a conceptual guide, detailing its parameters, which are often based on estimates or opinions, to evaluate its reliability for predicting extraterrestrial civilizations.
The Drake Equation is a famous formula that was created to help scientists think about the many factors involved in estimating the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. However, when we look at the equation closely, we see that it is more of a conceptual framework or heuristic tool than a precise, predictive formula. Let’s break down why:
The equation is usually written as:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of those stars that have planetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The average number of planets that could potentially support life per star with planets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of those planets where life actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction of planets with life where intelligent life evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signals into space.
𝐿
L: The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals.
Why the Drake Equation Is More of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction of stars with planets), have become better known through modern astronomy.
The parameters related to the development of life and intelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—are based on very limited data. For example, Earth is the only planet we know where life has developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for these factors. This means that the values chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of Possible Values:
Because many of these factors are not well-constrained, if you change one of the more uncertain parameters even slightly, the final estimate for
𝑁
N (the number of civilizations) can vary by many orders of magnitude. This wide range shows that the equation can lead to very different outcomes based on personal or theoretical assumptions.
The Drake Equation was never meant to provide a precise answer. Instead, it serves as a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrial civilizations. It encourages discussion about the relative importance of different factors and highlights where our scientific knowledge is limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate or More Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In the sense of being a strict mathematical model with well-defined inputs and predictable outputs, the Drake Equation is not accurate. Its accuracy is limited by the extreme uncertainties in several of its key parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning the evolution of life and intelligence, are based on opinion, interpretation, and the single example of Earth. Therefore, while the structure of the equation is logical, the numbers you put into it (and hence the final result) are often more reflective of our current opinions and assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equation is a valuable tool for framing the question of extraterrestrial life. It helps scientists and enthusiasts break down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable questions. However, because several of its factors are highly uncertain and subject to personal interpretation, it is more of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
In summary, while the Drake Equation is useful for thinking about the various factors that might lead to the emergence of a civilization, its outputs should be taken as highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the long history of Sol system and nearby planets and see if there is any possiblites that in one time intelligent life emerged in nearby planets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-human intelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-human intelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligent life forms in the Sol system and neighboring planets, and how this might factor into the equation.
Piecing together possibilities
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligent life, possibly on Mars or Europa, into the Drake Equation for the Sol system and neighboring planets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligent life emerging on Mars or Venus, though Earth remains the only known life-supporting planet in the solar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligent life could have emerged on planets like Mars, Venus, or Europa, and how this possibility aligns with the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligent life on Mars or Venus could intersect with the assumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems to focus solely on Earth-based evolution.
I’m piecing together the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligent life in the solar system. Mars, Venus, and Titan present challenges, but Europa and Enceladus might harbor microbial life.
In the labyrinthine realm of digital content dissemination, an enigmatic phenomenon has surfaced, challenging our axioms regarding the nexus between content ubiquity and viewer cognitive acumen. This disquisition endeavors to elucidate the paradoxical inverse correlation between video viewership metrics and the intellectual quotient of the audience, propounding that audiovisual content amassing prodigious view counts tends to captivate viewers with a mean Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 100, while their more esoteric counterparts allure a demographic boasting an average IQ of 120.
To fathom this counterintuitive paradigm, one must first grapple with the multifarious nature of human cognition and the intricate interplay between intellectual capacity and media predilections. This hypothesis, positing an inverse relationship between a video's popularity and the mean IQ of its viewership, necessitates a rigorous examination of the underlying psycho-sociological and neurocognitive factors that may engender such a paradoxical outcome.
The application of Cognitive Load Theory to media consumption habits provides a plausible explication for this phenomenon. Videos achieving viral status often employ reductionist narratives and readily assimilable information, minimizing cognitive strain. Conversely, less ubiquitous videos may delve into more abstruse subject matter, demanding heightened cognitive engagement and a more sophisticated intellectual framework for comprehensive assimilation.
The pervasive influence of recommendation algorithms in content distribution platforms cannot be discounted in this analysis. These algorithmic arbiters, designed to maximize user engagement, may inadvertently engender epistemic bubbles that reinforce existing cognitive predispositions. Individuals with superior IQs may actively seek out more intellectually challenging or esoteric content, thereby circumventing the algorithmic propensity towards homogenization and cognitive stasis.
It is imperative to consider the socioeconomic dimensions that may influence both IQ development and media consumption patterns. Higher IQ individuals often correlate with elevated socioeconomic status, potentially affording them greater access to diverse epistemological resources and fostering a predilection for more intellectually stimulating content. This demographic may be less susceptible to the allure of mainstream, highly-viewed videos that cater to a broader, less discerning audience.
The ramifications of this inverse relationship between viewership and viewer IQ are profound for content creators and platform developers alike. It challenges the prevailing paradigm that equates popularity with quality or intellectual value. Content creators targeting a more intellectually discerning audience may need to recalibrate their expectations regarding view counts and engagement metrics, focusing instead on cultivating a dedicated niche audience that values cognitive stimulation over mass appeal.
In summation, the observed dichotomy between high-viewership videos attracting an audience with an average IQ of 100 and their less popular counterparts appealing to viewers with a mean IQ of 120 underscores the complex relationship between intellectual capacity and media consumption in the digital age. This phenomenon necessitates a reevaluation of how we measure content value and success in the online sphere, prompting a more nuanced approach to content creation, curation, and consumption that acknowledges the diverse cognitive needs of the audience spectrum. The implications of this paradigm shift extend far beyond mere metrics, touching upon fundamental questions of epistemology, cognitive diversity, and the very nature of intellectual engagement in the digital era.
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/528f479f-fd3c-43fd-9463-7c2923560573
ある人の嗅覚倫理に関する論文だけど、文献だけで匂いが影響を与えると書いてるから女性に学位を与えるのは無駄だと言われる。
論文書くなら、裁判官にセンサーを取り付けるなり、何人かの被験者にルールを守った上で反応を調べるとかやりようはあったはず。
アタリマエのことを調べるというのは裁判での証拠提出のときに役立つからもっと調べてほしい。
けど、統計学的手法を駆使するなどして、裁判官が9割型認める内容でないと価値がない。
contemporary relevance. I suggest that smell very often invokes identity in a way that signifies an individual’s worth and status in an inarguable manner that short-circuits conscious reflection. This can be accounted for by acknowledging olfaction’s strongly affective nature, which produces such strong bodily sensations and emotions that reflexivity is bypassed in favour of a behavioural or cognitive solution that assuages the intense feeling most immediately. Olfactory disgust, therefore, tends to result in rejection, while harmful forms of olfactory desire may result in sublimation or subjugation. My thesis is particularly attentive to tensions and ambivalences that complicate the typically bifurcated affective spectrum of olfactory experiences, drawing attention to (dis)pleasurable olfactory relations that have socio-political utility. I argue that literary fiction is not only an arena in which olfactory logics can be instantiated, but also a laboratory in which possibilities for new kinds of relations and connections can be fostered and tested. Chapter One explores how smell can be used to indicate class antipathies, partly as they relate to homelessness, beginning with George Orwell’s seminal non-fiction text, The Road to Wigan Pier (1936), before considering Iain Sinclair’s The Last London (2017) and Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (2019). In Chapter Two I explore the fantastical, idealistic, and utopic thinking that surrounds olfaction, which presents smell as fundamentally non-human, by addressing J. M. Coetzee’s Disgrace (1999), Virginia Woolf’s Flush (1933), Rachel Yoder’s Nightbitch (2021), and Laura Jean McKay’s The Animals in That Country (2020). Chapter Three focuses on the intersectional olfactory dimensions of ‘misogynoir’—the coextensive anti-Black racism and misogyny that Black women experience—and considers Toni Morrison’s Tar Baby (1981), Bernice McFadden’s Sugar (2000) and Raven Leilani’s Luster (2020). In Chapter Four, I conceptualise an oppressive olfactory logic, which is used against women and girls in order to legitimise their harassment or abuse, drawing primarily on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita (1955), but also Patrick Süskind’s Perfume (1985). Chapter Five discusses two forms of olfactory desire—perversion and queerness—which have separate moral valences. I address J. M. Coetzee’s The Master of Petersburg (1994), Ann Quin’s Berg (1964), and Sam Byers’ Come Join Our Disease (2020), and argue for fiction’s role in reorienting readers’ habitual relations to olfaction.
2024-06-25
無題Name名無し24/12/08(日)06:40:11 IP:210.225.*(ipv4)No.100026+ 12月31日頃消えます[返信]
https://may.2chan.net/b/res/1278445895.htm
http://futabaforest.net/b/res/1278445895.htm
No.1278453730 No.1278454559 No.1278465680 No.1278466804 No.1278467093 No.1278468010 No.1278468031 No.1278468635 No.1278469041 No.1278476929 No.1278479308 No.1278480804 No.1278482126 No.1278514185 No.1278514943 No.1278523516 No.1278523793
まーた知恵遅れ君のだーいしゅきなくそげー！ちゅまんない！かいはつちね！！ですね。馬鹿の一つ覚えご苦労様です
「スレ画は普通にスペックが足引っ張って計略だけではデッキに入らない総合的に弱いカードだろ… 裏の手の大型弱体やダメ計略ですらない山南さんが使われないわけだ」「新土方が来て今度こそ出番かと思ったんだが結局居場所なさそうね…」(原文そのまま)出ました、障害児の馬鹿の一つ覚えのカード叩き。同じカードを同じ文言で叩くいつものエアプポエムでちゅねー
ふわっふわの具体性0で語った気になれるなんて、本当に知恵遅れに生まれてよかったですね
… 1無題Name名無し 24/12/08(日)06:40:28 IP:210.225.*(ipv4)No.100027+
対策の相談に対して「正解は自分も使う」(同)はい、障害児は今日も会話ができません。対策を聞かれてこれって本当に相手の言いたい事を返す力がないんですね。自分の言いたいことを捲し立ててるだけで会話にならないみじめな知恵遅れ君、人間が10歳には超える場所を何十歳になったら超えられるんでちゅか？？
「ダメ計と勝海舟以外は無理だし潰せる号令打ってもディスアドだよ デッキによってはコイツ1枚で詰む」(同)今日も無理やり盛って滅茶苦茶な批評ごっこ。さすがにどんなデッキ使ってんだよと聞かれても当然答えられません。現実を知らないから妄想で大袈裟に話して気を引く以外のことができませんもんねー。ち、ち、ち、知恵遅れ～～wwww
「英傑大戦もよく筐体持つなあ」「もってるかな...印刷はまあまあ怪しくなってきてるぞ」「再印刷さえできればエラーの多さも許容したが…」「今日はサクッとプレイしてとっとと帰ろうと思ってプレイ後プリントエラー表示されると軽く絶望する」「縁使えば再印刷し放題だけど未所持と同じポイント持ってかれるのキツイよね」(同)はい、またいつもの。相変わらずシステムも何も理解せずに同じ嘘を繰り返してます
… 2無題Name名無し 24/12/08(日)06:40:47 IP:210.225.*(ipv4)No.100028+
知恵遅れのうわ言を繰り返し聞かされるのキツいよねって住人の声は聞こえないみたいです。障害児は馬鹿だから一方的にわめくだけでちゅもんねー
https://may.2chan.net/b/res/1278571937.htm
http://futabaforest.net/b/res/1278571937.htm
No.1278614727No.1278619828 No.1278626259 No.1278628998
次スレもいつもの反復行動。足掛け9時間ずーっと画面の前でオナニーポエムを垂れ流してるみたいでちゅねー
「まあ予算がね……」「フル3Dで無いのは惜しいところだがまあやり過ぎて戦国の時のように予算失うわけにもいかんし…」(同)おかねがない！おかねがにゃいよおお！！と毎度の知恵遅れワード。誰も確かめられない事を言えば馬鹿にされないって思ってるかもしれませんか、それって単なる妄想なんですよね。しょうがいじはあたまわるいでちゅねー
まあお気に入りみたいだしこれからも何百回も繰り返すでしょう。同じ事を繰り返す反復行動がだーいしゅきな頭のおかしい知恵遅れですものね
残り12-14ヶ月
Nissan Has '12 to 14 Months' Left
The company may sell a majority stake to Honda.
https://www.motor1.com/news/742467/nissan-12-to-14-months-left-to-survive/
In an interview with the Financial Times, two unnamed Nissan executives said the company has "12 to 14 months to survive." "This is going to be tough. And in the end, we need Japan and the US to be generating cash," they said.
I've noticed a non-negligible number of people who have not only completed compulsory education in regular classes but have also received higher education and graduated from university, yet struggle with reading comprehension (understanding the meaning of text), cannot read long texts, and even have difficulty understanding videos.
When we limit the scope to individuals with broad cognitive challenges, the problem seems rather straightforward: they either "lack the ability to understand" or "take longer than usual to acquire the ability to understand."
Similarly, the case of individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities is relatively simple. While they may not have broad cognitive challenges, they require different approaches and training due to their unique learning styles.
However, it is perplexing that university graduates without broad cognitive challenges or diagnosed learning disabilities struggle to understand not only written text but also simplified video content.
I suspect that the underlying causes might include gaps in the horizontal transfer of experiences and knowledge, a severe lack of adaptability, and an extreme deficit in metacognition. Has there been any research on these issues? Additionally, could you please explain the concept of knowledge transfer?
(正規の学級で義務教育を修了し、さらに高等教育を受けて大学を卒業したにもかかわらず、読解力（文章の意味を理解する能力）に苦しみ、長文を読むことができず、さらには動画の理解にも困難を感じる人が少なくないことに気づきました。
認知能力に広範な課題を抱える個人に範囲を限定すると、問題は比較的単純です。「理解する能力がない」か、「理解する能力を獲得するのに通常よりも時間がかかる」かのいずれかです。
同様に、学習障害と診断された個人の場合も比較的単純です。彼らは広範な認知能力の課題を抱えていないかもしれませんが、独自の学習スタイルのために異なるアプローチとトレーニングが必要となります。
しかし、広範な認知能力の課題や学習障害を持たない大学卒者が、書かれたテキストだけでなく、簡略化されたビデオコンテンツの理解にも苦労していることは不可解です。
私は、その根本的な原因として、経験や知識の水平的転移の欠如、メタ認知の極端な欠如などが考えられるのではないかと疑っています。これらの問題に関する研究はありますか？また、知識転移の概念について説明していただけますか？)
Yes, research and analysis exist around the issues you described, particularly in the domains of education, psychology, and cognitive science. Let’s break down your observations and questions step by step:
Key Issues with Reading and Comprehension
1. Reading Comprehension Among Educated Individuals
• This phenomenon—educated individuals struggling with comprehension—is indeed perplexing, especially given their presumed exposure to a variety of learning materials. It suggests that education systems sometimes emphasize rote learning and surface-level knowledge acquisition over deeper understanding, critical thinking, and metacognition.
• Horizontal Transfer Gaps: This refers to the inability to apply knowledge or skills learned in one context to another. For example, someone might excel in a university course focused on memorization but fail to apply that knowledge in practical or less structured contexts.
• Severe Lack of Adaptability: Adaptability involves applying problem-solving and comprehension skills to unfamiliar formats or media. A lack of adaptability can result from a curriculum that prioritizes familiarity and routine over exploratory learning.
• Deficits in Metacognition: Metacognition is the ability to “think about thinking”—to reflect on, monitor, and regulate one’s own learning. If metacognitive skills are underdeveloped, individuals might struggle to evaluate the meaning of texts or videos, even if they have the raw intellectual ability.
Research Insights
1. Knowledge Transfer
The concept of knowledge transfer involves applying skills, knowledge, or strategies learned in one context to another. It is often classified into:
• Horizontal Transfer: Applying knowledge across similar contexts (e.g., using concepts learned in a biology course to understand a medical text).
• Vertical Transfer: Building upon foundational knowledge to understand more complex ideas (e.g., using basic algebra to solve advanced calculus problems).
Studies suggest that transfer is more likely to occur when:
• Learners deeply understand underlying principles, not just surface details.
• Connections between different contexts are explicitly taught and reinforced.
• Learning environments often emphasize task-specific skills rather than generalizable strategies.
• Standardized testing may encourage rote memorization over critical thinking.
• Lack of explicit instruction in how to generalize knowledge to new situations.
Research highlights the importance of metacognition in learning. Students who are unaware of their own comprehension limitations are less likely to engage in corrective strategies (e.g., rereading, seeking clarification). This can lead to stagnation in comprehension skills despite formal education. Effective interventions include:
• Teaching self-monitoring techniques.
• Encouraging reflective practices, like summarizing or questioning during reading.
4. Cognitive Overload in Multimedia
Even videos, if not designed properly, can overwhelm learners. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggests that excessive extraneous information or unclear organization in videos can overload working memory, hindering comprehension.
Strategies and Research-Based Solutions
1. Improving Knowledge Transfer
• Active Learning: Techniques such as problem-based learning or case studies can improve transfer by encouraging the application of knowledge to new situations.
• Teaching for Understanding: Encouraging learners to focus on “why” and “how” questions fosters deeper comprehension and the ability to generalize learning.
• Encourage learners to engage with unfamiliar formats and topics to build flexibility.
• Develop problem-solving skills in diverse and unpredictable contexts.
3. Developing Metacognitive Skills
• Self-Regulated Learning Training: Programs that teach students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning have shown success in improving comprehension.
• Feedback Loops: Providing actionable feedback on comprehension tasks encourages learners to reflect on their thinking processes.
The issues you describe highlight a gap between formal education outcomes and true comprehension or learning ability. Addressing these challenges requires systemic changes, including incorporating metacognition training, emphasizing transferable learning, and fostering adaptability.
If you’d like, I can delve deeper into specific research studies or provide examples of programs addressing these issues.
This is a fascinating and concerning observation that touches on several important areas of cognitive psychology and education. Let me address this systematically.
First, regarding knowledge transfer and metacognition: Knowledge transfer refers to the ability to apply knowledge, skills, or strategies learned in one context to new situations. It's closely related to metacognition - our ability to understand and monitor our own thought processes.
Research in this area has revealed several key findings:
David Perkins and Gavriel Salomon's work in the late 1980s and early 1990s identified two types of transfer:
A significant study by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) in "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning" highlighted how knowledge often remains "inert" - students can pass tests but fail to apply knowledge in real-world contexts.
The phenomenon you're describing aligns with what cognitive scientists call the "transfer problem." Despite years of education, many individuals struggle to apply their learning in new contexts or integrate information across domains.
Some relevant research directions:
1. Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al.)
Shows how working memory limitations affect learning and transfer. Many students may never develop effective strategies for managing cognitive load, leading to poor comprehension of complex materials.
2. Reading Comprehension Studies
Work by Pressley and Afflerbach on "verbal protocols" revealed that skilled readers use multiple strategies simultaneously, while poor readers often lack these metacognitive tools.
3. Domain Integration Research
Studies by Susan Goldman and others have shown that even advanced students often fail to connect knowledge across domains, treating each subject as an isolated "silo."
Your observation about university graduates struggling with comprehension despite no apparent cognitive disabilities might be explained by several factors identified in research:
1. Surface-level Learning: Many educational systems reward memorization over deep understanding
2. Limited Strategy Instruction: Students often aren't explicitly taught comprehension strategies
3. Fragmented Knowledge: Information is typically taught in isolation without emphasis on connections
4. Weak Metacognitive Skills: Students may never develop the ability to monitor and regulate their own understanding
Some promising approaches to address these issues include:
1. Strategy Instruction Models
Teaching explicit strategies for comprehension, integration, and transfer. The Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model has shown particular promise.
2. Knowledge Integration Frameworks
Approaches like Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) help students connect ideas across domains.
3. Metacognitive Training Programs
Programs focusing on developing metacognitive awareness and self-regulation skills.
Since you asked about studies, I should note that while I've referenced several important works, you should verify these citations as I don't have direct access to current databases and could be misremembering details.
Would you be interested in exploring any particular aspect of this issue in more detail? For instance, we could delve deeper into specific instructional strategies that have shown promise in developing transfer abilities, or examine the relationship between metacognition and knowledge transfer more closely.