Re: MR Evidence

From: Bill Spight (
Date: Thu Aug 09 2001 - 23:42:45 BST

  • Next message: Lawrence DeBivort: "RE: Grad student in need of help"

    Received: by id XAA11588 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:45:02 +0100
    Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:42:45 -0700
    From: Bill Spight <>
    Subject: Re: MR Evidence
    Message-id: <>
    Organization: Saybrook Graduate School
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Yahoo;YIP052400}  (Win95; U)
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    X-Accept-Language: en
    References: <3B6ECBC0.14995.5A4B18@localhost> <002101c11f77$62cc25c0$f188b2d1@teddace> <> <001901c1203e$ac167a60$6787b2d1@teddace> <> <004401c1210c$03aa4860$1e24f4d8@teddace>
    Precedence: bulk

    Dear Ted,

    > > Who knows what the feeling of confidence about guesses means? Even if
    > > you assume morphic resonance, why should you predict that?
    > Because the real terms seem somehow familiar to us, so when we guess their
    > meaning, we're liable to feel more confident of being right.

    Oh? And what evidence do we have for that? And if that is the
    explanation, why not have the words rated for familiarity?

    > > The second experiment is a good start. Once you have a set of fake
    > > Persian words that are as easy to duplicate as a set of real Persian
    > > words, then you test whether the real words are easier to learn. They
    > > should be, by morphic resonance, right?
    > This is exactly what Pickering did.

    Err, not as reported. He only investigated ease of duplication, he
    didn't control for it.



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 09 2001 - 23:49:19 BST