The following chart (created by some scientist(s) led by david reich) shows the genetic divergence between hominin samples as a fraction of the human-chimp difference.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom so for example, all the human groups have just over a 0.12 genetic divergence with neanderthals, meaning that the genetic difference between humans and neanderthals is only 12% as great as the genetic difference between humans and chimps (source: supplement of genetic history of an archaic hominin group from denisova cave in siberia.)

cognitive learning theory in the classroom

The purpose of the chart is to estimate how long ago the different populations diverged from a common ancestor. So since the fossil record tells us that neanderthals and chimps diverged about 6.5 million years, then humans and neanderthals should have diverged roughly 0.8 million years ago (12% of 6.5 million) assuming genetic divergence maps to chronological divergence in a linear way.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

I’m not saying I agree with this taxonomy since it was only based on genetic distance (much of which is junk DNA) but what’s great about using dendrograms is almost everyone looking at them will assign groups to the same categories and subcategories, even if they don’t use the same words (race, species, genus) to describe them.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom it’s wholly objective.

The psychological question of what makes people want to play casino games has never been too much of a mystery. Casino environments are basically built to give us little surges of adrenaline and dopamine.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom there are exciting sounds and visuals on gaming machines signifying victory; there’s a thrill in raking in a small stack of chips at a poker table, even if you’ve lost your previous 10 hands; somebody is always winning somewhere, effectively giving you continual previews of the joy and excitement you too could feel.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom the incentive, so to speak, is right there in front of you (or rather, all around you).

When it comes to sport and event betting, however, motivation and incentive are a little bit murkier.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom next to casino play, this side of the gambling business is positively dull: casino sportsbooks are essentially more depressing versions of sports bars, and betting slips are about as bland to look at as grocery store receipts.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom nothing jingles or flashes if you win, and you aren’t immediately gifted with colorful tokens representing your winnings. So what exactly makes people want to bet?Cognitive learning theory in the classroom we’re digging into some of the psychological motivators and reasons below.

There are actually some fairly academic looks into the psychology of sports betting, and really they turn up the same old reasons behind gambling that most of us are at least vaguely familiar with – the things that are somewhat foundational, impacting us before the excitement of a casino environment even comes into play.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom most notably, it’s risk and reward. The risk of gambling produces adrenaline in and of itself; we almost inherently like putting something on the line and not knowing if it will pay off (though interestingly, men seem to enjoy this more than women, based on studies).Cognitive learning theory in the classroom as for reward, it’s fairly self-explanatory. We also enjoy gambling not because of the activity itself, but because we like the possibility of the rewards it could bring about.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom the most basic way to understand this psychology is just to think about why people keep buying lottery tickets – but it factors into sports betting as well.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

With more specific regard to sports betting, there is also an element of the psychology that ties into people’s knowledge of the subject at hand.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom we tend to bet on sports (or events, politics, etc.) that we’re familiar with – that we think we know, and by extension, can predict. Studies have actually indicated that having greater knowledge of a given subject doesn’t necessarily correlate to more success betting, but that’s a hard thing for us to tell ourselves.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom if we feel like experts about something, we want to put that expertise to use in a practical, rewarding manner – just as we would in everyday life or with a work-related skill.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

More and more we’re also seeing betting twisted into something resembling a game, which in turn allows bettors to feel as if knowledge and skill are playing a role.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom it’s no accident that the budding online gambling culture in new jersey is compared and in some cases directly tied to the existing daily fantasy sports industry in the U.S.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom before betting legalization started, daily fantasy was effectively taking advantage of legal loopholes and allowing people to gamble on outcomes within the boundaries of fantasy sports.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom this is a game, to most people – one that we at least perceive is decided to some extent based on our skills, knowledge, and decisions. The more opportunities we have to bet in this fashion, the more likely competitive instincts are to come into play.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom simply put, we bet because we feel like we’re just playing games we know how to win.

There is also an element of loss aversion present in the psychology of sports betting.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom it may not get us to start betting in the first place, but it can certainly get us to keep at it once we’ve started, just as it’s so often responsible for keeping someone sitting at a poker table for too long.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom the idea, for those who aren’t familiar, is simply that the pain of losing is greater than the joy of winning. We care more when we lose a bet than when we win one.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom and because losing is essentially inherently more likely in betting, we have an easy recipe for staying interested. The more bets we lose, the less we want to walk away, and the surer we become that the next one will be a winner.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

It is implausible that the bushmen populations (which once occupied a much larger range than today) lived in total isolation from non-bushmen populations.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom presumably the mutation or mutations that facilitated the emergence of grammar appeared or came together in one population first. This development was so valuable that the relevant genes had a high chance of being preserved and spreading to fixation if even a small amount of interbreeding occurred with a neighboring population.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom thus, even if bushmen (and pygmies, BTW) split off between 200kya and 300kya, that would not have prevented the spread of an especially valuable mutation from any one human population to all the rest.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom I argue that a limited vocabulary already existed in all sapiens populations (and probably some non-sapiens populations as well), but the appearance of the “grammar gene(s)” made vocabulary immensely more useful so that it was now worthwhile to coin many more words, and the more intelligent band members could master the use and comprehension of this expanding vocabulary much better than the less intelligent.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom the grammar mutation should have spread relatively rapidly from any human population to all the rest. If we backcrossed with neanderthals and denisovans, I cannot imagine that there was not also gene flow to (and from) bushmen (and pygmies) as well.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom further, I know of no reason to presume that grammar did not first emerge in bushmen and spread to non-bushmen rather than vice versa. We simply do not know.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

Neanderthals possessed our FOXP2 gene and a hyoid bone that facilitate speech, but the larynx was still in a more anterior position, as in an infant of our species, which restricted the number of vowel sounds that could be formed, and therefore the number of words that could be created.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom I argue that if neanderthal has possessed grammatical language at an earlier date, there would have been evolutionary selection for a larynx positioned so that a larger number of words could be formed.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom thus, I also argue that grammar evolved sometime after neanderthals split from the lineage that led to sapiens, and our sudden and rapid colonization of the world in the last 70ky suggests that the grammatically structured use of vocabular evolved shortly before we exploded suddenly over the world’s surface, since the appearance of grammatical language is the most likely advantage that allowed us to expand rapidly and to quickly displace our rivals who were longer established and better adapted to the local environment.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

So from 300 kya to 50 kya may have been a period of stability, since we had acquired the ability to conquer africa, but apparently couldn’t leave (perhaps because neanderthals were still superior to us at that point and thus would kill us the second we entered the middle east, or perhaps we were still too dumb to survive the cold middle eastern winters)

cognitive learning theory in the classroom

So our ability to colonize jumped from one continent per 250,000 years to one continent per 8000 years (a 31-fold increase!). What caused this explosive change?Cognitive learning theory in the classroom probably some mutation(s) in africa that gave us the intelligence to leave, (as klein claimed) quickly followed by natural selection for even more intelligence as we encounter cold climates our tropical bodies weren’t built for (as psychologist richard lynn claimed).Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

A new analysis of 1,000 pieces of prehistoric and modern artwork finds that “cavemen,” or people living during the upper paleolithic period between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago, were more accurate in their depictions of four-legged animals walking than artists are today.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom while modern artists portray these animals walking incorrectly 57.9 percent of the time, prehistoric cave painters only made mistakes 46.2 percent of the time.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

Also, if there’s been such rapid evolutionary change in the last 10,000 years, why hasn’t our ability to colonize new locations increased? We saw a huge increase in colonization ability 50,000 years ago as we jumped from colonizing one continent per 250,000 years to one per 40,000 years, but we haven’t colonized anything in the last 10,000 years, not even antarctica.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom this suggests no increase in intelligence since the upper paleolithic.

On the other hand, we went to the moon which is arguably the equivalent of colonizing a hundred new continents.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom or did we? A lot of people think that was a hoax designed to elevate the U.S. Above her soviet cold-war competitors, and while I wouldn’t go that far, if I were a conspiracy nut I would find it suspicious that a) we did this with crude 1960s technology yet can’t seem to do it again today, b) we can go to the moon but we can’t colonize antarctica, and c) east asians never went to the moon, despite having the highest iqs.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom

The strongest evidence that we’ve become smarter in the last 10,000 years is that east asians score about 14 IQ points higher than arctic people according to richard lynn, even though both are big brained cold adapted mongoloids that split from a common ancestor before the neolithic transition.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom similarly, lynn found the same pattern in africa: bantus score 12 IQ points above bushmen. This may suggest that the 10,000 year explosion added nearly 1 SD to our iqs.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom or it could suggest that lynn’s data is flawed or that extreme differences in environment (not DNA) explains the IQ advantage east asians and bantu have over their hunter-gatherer cousins.Cognitive learning theory in the classroom