Well, at least he didn't plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise, only be sure always to call it please 'research'.
A self-appointed expert who used brain scans to "demystify" human creativity has admitted he was overly creative in his "journalism". Jonah Lehrer confessed that he made-up quotes he had attributed to Bob Dylan, and has quit his job at the New Yorker magazine. Journalist and author Lehrer is a kind of cut-price Malcolm …
That was a creative mash-up born in hell.
It's like one of those articles where some prof tries to demonstrate that consciousness actually, objectively exists and cannot be explained by science or imitated by application of engineering. He then sets up a strawman ("experiments with brain damaged patients SHOW that qualia are not generated in the BRAIN!") which is then meticulously destroyed.
Here the need is expressed to show that creativity actually, objectively exists, has nothing to do with plagiarism or imitation and needs the guns and badges of the state for some monopoly action on its products. Then a strawman is set up (some dude from the NYT, who he?) which is then messily destroyed.
Many questions remain!
Am I being creative if I remove the milk bottle from the fridge in a special way while fighting off my cat? Is it creative to think about the neurological basis of creativity? Is finding a creative algorithm that creates for me actually being creative or is it being meta-creative? Do I get a meta-copyright?
Yes, creativity is a "mixing function". But like a good hash-function, the mixing should be so complete that the sources are indiscernible in the output. The results must then be appraised, refined and evolved, and only the best selected for release. That takes both talent and practice. We're currently handing out medals to people who've honed their athletic talent through years of training, while deploring those who cheat. The "muscle" in ones skull deserves the same level of respect.
Sociobiology is thriving. Widely accepted as central to understanding the evolved behaviour of many organisms, including humans. The "just so story" claims and controversies that accompanied its birth have pretty much died down nowadays. To avoid the association, it is now often called "Behavioural Ecology", but it is the same thing Wilson laid out in the 70s. The tiny subset of sociobiology relating to human "evolutionary psychology" is still a bit contentious (and certainly contains plenty of academic flame-bait), but sociobiology as a whole is now part of the standard model of biology.
Phrenology (the "science" of understanding a person's personality by the shape and contours of the skull) has been thoroughly discredited, however, there is strong evidence for retro-phrenology: Altering a persons behaviour and attitude (and occasionally personality) by re-arranging the contours of their skull.
quote: "grindcore, yes. GRIMEcore? I guess if you're making up quotes you might as well make up musical genres as well."
Music journalists (and fans, to be fair) have been making up musical genres since the invention of music. The last couple of decades have been ridiculous for it; I have absolutely no doubt that someone has already coined the term "grimecore" and a quick search on the interwebs has validated this.
Along with a wiki link for the term "grindie" (grime + indie, apaprently).
I can only presume that fans of a particular band get so incensed at having "their" band likened to other bands who practise a similar sound, that they have to point out the differences e.g. "No! Band X is screamo, but Band Y is hardcore emo they are not the same thing at all!".
I remember when it was all "heavy metal", as far as the eye could see...
> at least some social behaviour has genetic foundations.
It's trivial to show that this is so. Just get some chicken eggs.
Chickens can be hatched in an incubator. You can produce a small flock that has never had any contact with other chickens. Yet that flock will behave exactly as you expect chickens to behave.
That behavior cannot be learned - there are no other chickens from which to learn. It is either the only possible way of behaving - which is a daft idea - or else it is laid down in the genetics.
It is reasonable to assume that humans are not immune to this effect - but I have no way of knowing whether it is more than statistical noise compared to the learned behaviours we have.
 All the cockerels my mate hatched would crow. But some weren't all that good at it :-)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018