Les hommes éprouvent du plaisir à voir un tricheur puni. Pas les femmes. Et ça explique pourquoi notre justice est en crise aujourd'hui.
Pour le comprendre, il faut lire l'étude de Singer et al., publiée dans Nature (Numéro 439, p. 466-469, 2006).
Cette étude a observé 32 volontaires (16 hommes et 16 femmes) pendant qu'ils regardaient des acteurs "justes" ou "injustes" (ayant triché) recevoir de légers chocs électriques.
Le résultat ?
Quand un joueur "juste" souffre, hommes et femmes activent les mêmes aires de la douleur empathique (fronto-insulaire et cortex cingulaire antérieur).
Jusqu'ici, rien d'anormal...
En revanche, lorsque c'est un joueur « injuste » qui souffre, les hommes ne montrent aucune empathie (pas d'activation des aires de la douleur), mais une bouffée d'activité dans le noyau accumbens, le centre de la récompense, le même qui s'allume pour la nourriture, le sexe ou la drogue.
Les femmes, elles, continuaient à montrer de l'empathie, même envers le tricheur qui souffrait et était sanctionné. La partie du cerveau dédiée au plaisir de la récompense ne montrait aucune activité.
En bref, le plaisir neurologique d'infliger une punition et l'intensité de ce désir sont constitutifs du "comportement juste". A l'inverse, leur absence explique l'impossibilité, quasiment biologique, de rendre la justice.
Voilà pourquoi la justice est dysfonctionnelle aujourd'hui.
Casi 40 minutos en moto para tomarnos una cerveza en "una terraza nueva chulísima que han abierto" según esposa. Al llegar, obviamente,no hay sitio. La cerveza no le gusta. Silla incómoda.
Las mujeres son la prueba que nos puso Dios para comprobar los misterios de la existencia.
I have been seeing a certain archetypal commenter in the spotlight recently; all women my age, progressive, and employed at mainstream institutions. I don't know them. Yet in every case, I can intuit their origin story.
It goes something like this:
> be an older millennial female, no strong passion, but strive hard in school
> reach High School
> steer clear of the kids who like talking about “far out” philosophical issues
> also steer clear of student government and debate club, which seems too contentious and vaguely threatening
> focus on getting perfect marks, complying with college reqs. Get into top uni based on those marks
> get introduced to politics in freshmen social justice class, instantly floored
> the appeal of college politics is just how cut-and-dried it is. Unlike other fields, it has a clear “good” and “bad” side, no ambiguity. The “good” side always wins in classroom discussions, you feel like a hero for validating consensus with "The Conversation"
> politics becomes your religion, “this is my passion!”
> graduate with top marks and recs. Your degree is essentially in “Current Thing-ism”. Have no broad understanding of history or philosophy.
> Your concept of human events is just people being oppressed for 4000 years until feminism and progress happened in the 20th c.
> despite the Global Financial Crisis, immediately get hired by a government/media org because they want someone who “understands the role of female politics in our new digital era!”
> most of your colleagues share your perspective, the ones who don't are older guys on their way to retirement, not looking for the confrontation that disagreeing with you would certainly involve.
> great awokening happens, double down on Current-Thingism politics
> organe-man-bad and COVID happens, triple down on politics.
> you are 15 years deep in your career, you have never once genuinely engaged with a peer who didn't validate your worldview or who you didn't consider a "token" opposition to placade your political enemies
> vibe shift happens, establishment uncertain, time to have a "conversation" with the people you've considered deplorable
> have conversation, hear non-progressive opinion that is common in the modern world, historically ubiquitous
> react with schock, umbrage horror. "Can you even believe this is happening?"
> confident that non-progressive opinion is trivially easy to refute, somehow have no idea how to actually refute it
> unaware just how deeply you have been betrayed by your education, such that the average educated man on the street has more practical understanding of what politics is than you do with decades of "experience."
Las viudas de Lasso creían que podían armar una tercera vía, compadeciéndose con el “correísmo light”.
No hay correísmo light. El correísmo es un virus que infecta todo lo que toca. Todo.
The funny thing about the AI “intelligence” revolution is that AI is basically a writer. Writing what? Anything. Prose. Poetry. Code. Math. It can write.
And the question is, if you automated writing, how disruptive is that?
It’s not nothing. But also, it’s a pretty whimsical premise right? Like ha wow writing is solved, THEREFORE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING IS TRULY FUCKED. Like what? How did you get there?
IT CAN WRITE A LOT. REALLY FAST.
oooo, spooky
Clearly the non-delusional take is every human gains an expensive writing/research assistant. And this is clearly, demonstrably the full extent of the revolution.