[HN Gopher] Shoes, Algernon, Pangea, and sea peoples
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Shoes, Algernon, Pangea, and sea peoples
        
       Author : crescit_eundo
       Score  : 48 points
       Date   : 2025-09-25 16:11 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (dynomight.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net)
        
       | RamRodification wrote:
       | _> But there doesn't seem to be any cognitive task that you can
       | practice and make yourself better at other cognitive tasks._
       | 
       | This seems wrong. Doesn't practicing cognitive tasks often lead
       | to improvement in other cognitive tasks?
        
         | more_corn wrote:
         | Doesn't identifying and challenging logical fallacies make you
         | better at thinking?
         | 
         | Doesn't acknowledging the possibility of error and allowing
         | conclusions to be overturned by evidence improve the outcomes
         | of cognition?
        
       | AfterHIA wrote:
       | I dig your style. I had a thought:
       | 
       | "doesn't seem to be any cognitive task that you can practice and
       | make yourself better at other cognitive tasks."
       | 
       | I believe reading books and playing musical instruments are
       | examples of cognitive task that make you better at other
       | cognitive tasks. Also learning other languages comes to mind. I
       | think I'm reiterating your point. It's, "not a wall but a steep
       | slope." Cheers mate.
        
         | dr_dshiv wrote:
         | It's unclear. On one hand, there is little evidence of being
         | able to strengthen mental faculties (reasoning, working memory,
         | etc) through practice -- only the development of specific
         | skills that can transfer.
         | 
         | Yet, the emotional capacity to do hard work without getting
         | frustrated and quitting (viz. "cognitive endurance") appears to
         | be its own skill.
        
         | more_corn wrote:
         | There are known errors in thinking. Avoiding them can make you
         | less likely to fall into the many reasoning errors that humans
         | have been trapped in throughout history.
         | 
         | It might not make you 2% smarter on a test. It probably makes
         | you 2% and more overall because you can examine your thinking
         | for common classes of error, identity your mistakes and attempt
         | to correct them.
         | 
         | Examine the known errors humans have made in their
         | understanding of the world. Identify patterns in those errors,
         | abstract those errors, apply the principles to your
         | conclusions.
         | 
         | Here's one: thinking there's some source of truth written on
         | commonly known that cannot be challenged. For centuries after
         | the invention of the microscope germ theory was disregarded
         | because a false theory of miasma predominated. Why? We got
         | attached to pleasant sounding but made up story. We didn't
         | question it enough to allow the evidence before our eyes to
         | update our thinking.
         | 
         | I leave exploration of other classes of errors in thinking as
         | an exercise for the reader.
        
       | gsf_emergency_2 wrote:
       | Pre-chatgpt blogposts on well-known topics used to be far better
       | motivated or layman-oriented
       | 
       | https://ace-pt.org/ace-physical-therapy-and-sports-medicine-...
       | 
       | which hints that the low 2.7% improvement should not be
       | unexpected of commercializable interventions targeting this joint
       | 
       | (unlike, say, of obviously illegal (powered or not) exoskeletons)
       | 
       | https://medium.com/the-bronze-age/the-ships-of-the-sea-peopl...
       | 
       | Otoh, bona fide connections between Pangaea, Sea Peoples & modern
       | day Turkiye are still discussed on OpenAI-resistant YouTube today
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/a0LWFt78n7k
       | 
       | On the first hand, the automaton reminds me that "modern-day
       | philistines settled in the Gaza Strip after their defeat"
        
       | boris wrote:
       | > We have been optimized very hard by evolution to be good at
       | running, so there shouldn't be any "easy" technologies that would
       | make us dramatically faster or more efficient.
       | 
       | I wonder if these new shoes have the same affect on natural
       | (i.e., non-paved) surfaces? Plus, they all look quite high off
       | the ground (probably all those plates and foam need space) and
       | that doesn't help with stability when running over rocks, etc.
        
         | BruceEel wrote:
         | Yes. The top marathon racing shoes are optimized for road-
         | running & hard surfaces like asphalt. Definitely not good for
         | trails. They are indeed very tall (though there's limits for
         | official competitions.) Excellent lateral stability is
         | essentially a non-goal so they are not a good choice for
         | volleyball or tennis either. So yeah, we run in a very
         | different world than the one where our ancestors evolved...
        
       | ashu1461 wrote:
       | > In general, that argument is that there shouldn't be any simple
       | technology that would make humans dramatically smarter, since if
       | there was, then evolution would have already found it.
       | 
       | With technology we have massively extended lifespan, so does this
       | argument really hold valid ?
        
         | _diyar wrote:
         | The word simple does a lot of work here.
        
         | iNic wrote:
         | On average. But it wasn't that uncommon to have people reach
         | 100 years of age even 500 years ago. The biggest impact on
         | lifespans was hygiene not medicine (except for maybe anti-
         | biotics).
        
           | more_corn wrote:
           | Vaccines dramatically reduce childhood mortality
           | significantly skewing mortality figures.
        
         | gmuslera wrote:
         | Evolution is multidimensional, if for improving one trait you
         | diminish another that may for our survival some compromise will
         | be reached. Not by design, but natural selection, at the end
         | matters that the genes manage to survive. If living more
         | implies that against food scarcity you get no surviving
         | children that is the end of the line for the genes that enabled
         | that extra lifespan.
         | 
         | And in evolutionary terms, having agriculture, civilization,
         | technology and a global culture that may support those traits
         | is the exception not the rule.
        
       | erezsh wrote:
       | Related interesting fact that I recently learned.
       | 
       | Supposedly, one people of the Sea Peoples were the Peleset, as
       | the egyptians called them
       | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peleset), which are believed to be
       | the same people as the Philistines, for which the Romans gave
       | Palestine its name.
        
         | kwk1 wrote:
         | Another tantalizing possible connection for two other Sea
         | Peoples groups, the "Sherden" and the "Shekelesh" sure sound
         | pretty close to "Sardinia" and "Sicily", but I'm not sure if
         | there's any actual evidence besides similarity.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-28 23:01 UTC)